net neutrality threatened
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: net neutrality threatened
It wasn't aimed at you specifically. But if you think the description matches you, then go ahead and feel addressed :)
- spanky4ever
- Gendarme
- Posts: 8390
- Joined: Apr 13, 2015
Re: net neutrality threatened
milku3459 wrote:@spanky4ever ahhh I see thanks.
How do you explain why Google and Facebook are such ardent supporters of Net Neutrality? Do you think their motives are innocent and pure?
Take a look at the video, and maybe you get the picture
Btw, Portugal do not have net neutrality, and have a system like this - they have to buy "packages" - almost like your ordinary cabel TV.
No wonder Google and Youtube are not interested in a deal like this, cos it would be bad for buisness. The same way its bad for buisness for ordinary people who could risk that their content will be much smaller, and the speed could also be slower, unless you pay extra for highspeed - about the same as you have today prolly.
The only one who benefit from this is the largest internet providers, and the people they donated to for getting this dirty deal
Take a look at how internet works in Portogal, who have no net neutrality:
And bear in mind that about 40% of USA internet users, only have one option to get internet. The 2 biggest companies are discustingly large, and have monopoly over a large part of the marked.
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
- milku3459
- Howdah
- Posts: 1216
- Joined: Nov 8, 2016
- ESO: milku3459
- Location: in your base, killing your dudes
Re: net neutrality threatened
@spanky4ever
Net Neutrality is an Obama-era rule made in 2015. Was the US internet like this before 2015?
Personally, I think it's because of their policy of throttling and silencing without explanation. Google and Facebook regularly ban and censor right-wing voices and messages (e.g. saying Donald Trump is not anti-muslim gets deleted, saying Facebook censors right-wing thought gets deleted, conservative content gets demonetized à la Diamond and Silk). The new rules iirc are ok with ISPs throttling stuff, as long as they fully disclose it and their reason for doing so to the public. If the new rules went through, then people might ask "if ISPs, even as a private enterprise, have to disclose who they throttle and ban, why are Google and Facebook exempt?" I think that's why Google and Facebook are supporters, they want to continue their very restrictive rule with zero accountability.
Last year, in the US alone, Pornhub users streamed 3,110 PETABYTES of high-fidelity ladies. That's 92 billion gigabytes. If porn were to be throttled, then much better service could be provided to other users who pay exactly the same price. It's not fair that my internet is slow because my neighbour insists on downloading 4k VR porn every night. Who knows, maybe Tit and Kynesie have such a neighbour. If throttling were allowed, then people would be encouraged to move to a dedicated "porn lane", paying for the much higher usage of data with a corresponding higher price. Like a tolled express lane in the US. The people who use more and slow down the network for everyone else ought to pay more and not burden others with their kinky habits. Isn't that fair?
I have an opposite view. Currently, all internet is supposed to move at the same speed, forcing everyone to pay the same price. That's no incentive for upgrading and innovation on the part of the ISP--they're not out to screw you over, they just want your money. If you remove the free market incentive, you remove the free market benefits we have seen explode the internet over the last decade. If I'm from a poorer household, maybe only one person in the house uses internet to check emails for work, then I ought to be paying less than the family next door who games. Similarly, if I want faster internet so I can game, use more bandwidth, I should be able to pay for it and get it. Net neutrality forces the poor to pay too much and the people who can afford it don't have the option to get better service.
I think they benefit from a free market not because they have more chances to screw you over, but because they can start screwing each other over, charging competitively for different services, moving into different neighbourhoods, price wars, forcing them out of the market...all this stuff which happens to drive prices down for the consumer.
I think the reason there's only one provider in an area is because there is zero motivation for people to move there and set up a service. The way competitors get into the market is by grabbing little niches of another company's base. With Net Neutrality, some new company can't move in and start a comparatively low-bandwidth, low cost service, or maybe a specific one for gamers with super fast service and higher prices. They are forced to provide the same service and price across the board. That stifles and kills competition, choking out the small companies and forcing the big ones to stagnate. If you regulate the free market, don't expect the benefits it brings of competition and lower prices.
Let's look at a comparable industry--mobile data. Do you remember how mobile data was 5 years ago? How is it now? Is it different? I am told it has improved a lot in terms of range, price and speed. How was your wifi 5 years ago? Do you see a similar kind of improvement? Do you remember the internet 5 years ago? What services did it offer? How has it changed? The free market enterprises of data and internet services have continued to stride forward, it is ISPs, hobbled by regulation, who cannot follow. That's my take on the subject.
Btw, Portugal do not have net neutrality, and have a system like this - they have to buy "packages" - almost like your ordinary cabel TV.
Net Neutrality is an Obama-era rule made in 2015. Was the US internet like this before 2015?
No wonder Google and Youtube are not interested in a deal like this, cos it would be bad for buisness.
Personally, I think it's because of their policy of throttling and silencing without explanation. Google and Facebook regularly ban and censor right-wing voices and messages (e.g. saying Donald Trump is not anti-muslim gets deleted, saying Facebook censors right-wing thought gets deleted, conservative content gets demonetized à la Diamond and Silk). The new rules iirc are ok with ISPs throttling stuff, as long as they fully disclose it and their reason for doing so to the public. If the new rules went through, then people might ask "if ISPs, even as a private enterprise, have to disclose who they throttle and ban, why are Google and Facebook exempt?" I think that's why Google and Facebook are supporters, they want to continue their very restrictive rule with zero accountability.
Last year, in the US alone, Pornhub users streamed 3,110 PETABYTES of high-fidelity ladies. That's 92 billion gigabytes. If porn were to be throttled, then much better service could be provided to other users who pay exactly the same price. It's not fair that my internet is slow because my neighbour insists on downloading 4k VR porn every night. Who knows, maybe Tit and Kynesie have such a neighbour. If throttling were allowed, then people would be encouraged to move to a dedicated "porn lane", paying for the much higher usage of data with a corresponding higher price. Like a tolled express lane in the US. The people who use more and slow down the network for everyone else ought to pay more and not burden others with their kinky habits. Isn't that fair?
The same way its bad for buisness for ordinary people who could risk that their content will be much smaller, and the speed could also be slower, unless you pay extra for highspeed - about the same as you have today prolly.
I have an opposite view. Currently, all internet is supposed to move at the same speed, forcing everyone to pay the same price. That's no incentive for upgrading and innovation on the part of the ISP--they're not out to screw you over, they just want your money. If you remove the free market incentive, you remove the free market benefits we have seen explode the internet over the last decade. If I'm from a poorer household, maybe only one person in the house uses internet to check emails for work, then I ought to be paying less than the family next door who games. Similarly, if I want faster internet so I can game, use more bandwidth, I should be able to pay for it and get it. Net neutrality forces the poor to pay too much and the people who can afford it don't have the option to get better service.
The only one who benefit from this is the largest internet providers, and the people they donated to for getting this dirty deal
I think they benefit from a free market not because they have more chances to screw you over, but because they can start screwing each other over, charging competitively for different services, moving into different neighbourhoods, price wars, forcing them out of the market...all this stuff which happens to drive prices down for the consumer.
And bear in mind that about 40% of USA internet users, only have one option to get internet. The 2 biggest companies are discustingly large, and have monopoly over a large part of the marked.
I think the reason there's only one provider in an area is because there is zero motivation for people to move there and set up a service. The way competitors get into the market is by grabbing little niches of another company's base. With Net Neutrality, some new company can't move in and start a comparatively low-bandwidth, low cost service, or maybe a specific one for gamers with super fast service and higher prices. They are forced to provide the same service and price across the board. That stifles and kills competition, choking out the small companies and forcing the big ones to stagnate. If you regulate the free market, don't expect the benefits it brings of competition and lower prices.
Let's look at a comparable industry--mobile data. Do you remember how mobile data was 5 years ago? How is it now? Is it different? I am told it has improved a lot in terms of range, price and speed. How was your wifi 5 years ago? Do you see a similar kind of improvement? Do you remember the internet 5 years ago? What services did it offer? How has it changed? The free market enterprises of data and internet services have continued to stride forward, it is ISPs, hobbled by regulation, who cannot follow. That's my take on the subject.
Re: net neutrality threatened
Lol Milku you conspiracy nut. Facebook and Google don't censor opinions. LMAO you have been watching too much Alex Jones. Google is the single biggest open source organization! Censoring? Allow me to laugh. This is the reason USA is going to hell. All these Trump voters seeing conspiracies everywhere.
/s
Pay more attention to detail.
Re: net neutrality threatened
milku3459 wrote:@spanky4everBtw, Portugal do not have net neutrality, and have a system like this - they have to buy "packages" - almost like your ordinary cabel TV.
Net Neutrality is an Obama-era rule made in 2015. Was the US internet like this before 2015?No wonder Google and Youtube are not interested in a deal like this, cos it would be bad for buisness.
Personally, I think it's because of their policy of throttling and silencing without explanation. Google and Facebook regularly ban and censor right-wing voices and messages (e.g. saying Donald Trump is not anti-muslim gets deleted, saying Facebook censors right-wing thought gets deleted, conservative content gets demonetized à la Diamond and Silk). The new rules iirc are ok with ISPs throttling stuff, as long as they fully disclose it and their reason for doing so to the public. If the new rules went through, then people might ask "if ISPs, even as a private enterprise, have to disclose who they throttle and ban, why are Google and Facebook exempt?" I think that's why Google and Facebook are supporters, they want to continue their very restrictive rule with zero accountability.
Last year, in the US alone, Pornhub users streamed 3,110 PETABYTES of high-fidelity ladies. That's 92 billion gigabytes. If porn were to be throttled, then much better service could be provided to other users who pay exactly the same price. It's not fair that my internet is slow because my neighbour insists on downloading 4k VR porn every night. Who knows, maybe Tit and Kynesie have such a neighbour. If throttling were allowed, then people would be encouraged to move to a dedicated "porn lane", paying for the much higher usage of data with a corresponding higher price. Like a tolled express lane in the US. The people who use more and slow down the network for everyone else ought to pay more and not burden others with their kinky habits. Isn't that fair?The same way its bad for buisness for ordinary people who could risk that their content will be much smaller, and the speed could also be slower, unless you pay extra for highspeed - about the same as you have today prolly.
I have an opposite view. Currently, all internet is supposed to move at the same speed, forcing everyone to pay the same price. That's no incentive for upgrading and innovation on the part of the ISP--they're not out to screw you over, they just want your money. If you remove the free market incentive, you remove the free market benefits we have seen explode the internet over the last decade. If I'm from a poorer household, maybe only one person in the house uses internet to check emails for work, then I ought to be paying less than the family next door who games. Similarly, if I want faster internet so I can game, use more bandwidth, I should be able to pay for it and get it. Net neutrality forces the poor to pay too much and the people who can afford it don't have the option to get better service.The only one who benefit from this is the largest internet providers, and the people they donated to for getting this dirty deal
I think they benefit from a free market not because they have more chances to screw you over, but because they can start screwing each other over, charging competitively for different services, moving into different neighbourhoods, price wars, forcing them out of the market...all this stuff which happens to drive prices down for the consumer.And bear in mind that about 40% of USA internet users, only have one option to get internet. The 2 biggest companies are discustingly large, and have monopoly over a large part of the marked.
I think the reason there's only one provider in an area is because there is zero motivation for people to move there and set up a service. The way competitors get into the market is by grabbing little niches of another company's base. With Net Neutrality, some new company can't move in and start a comparatively low-bandwidth, low cost service, or maybe a specific one for gamers with super fast service and higher prices. They are forced to provide the same service and price across the board. That stifles and kills competition, choking out the small companies and forcing the big ones to stagnate. If you regulate the free market, don't expect the benefits it brings of competition and lower prices.
Let's look at a comparable industry--mobile data. Do you remember how mobile data was 5 years ago? How is it now? Is it different? I am told it has improved a lot in terms of range, price and speed. How was your wifi 5 years ago? Do you see a similar kind of improvement? Do you remember the internet 5 years ago? What services did it offer? How has it changed? The free market enterprises of data and internet services have continued to stride forward, it is ISPs, hobbled by regulation, who cannot follow. That's my take on the subject.
1)Pre net-neutrality, AT&T blocked face time app on iphones due to data usage. Due to this, they couldve easily charged customers extra for allowing that.
2)Data slowdowns dont occur only due to high data users, it is simply due to the ISPs refusing to upgrade the infrastructure. In USA, for example, several years ago Verizon took millions from some states to set up fiber optic cable, and those areas still dont have what they were promised.
Error 404: Signature not found
Re: net neutrality threatened
@milku3459 theres so much inaccuracy in your statements I dont even know where to begin.
I'm just gonna ignore the fact that you seem to think that only right wing content gets censored, cause thats just so blatant misinformation its not even worth responding to, let alone having absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. The reason anyone with a large website that isn't just text is because its essentially going to put power into the hands of the ISPs rather than consumers. Netflix is a great company that everybody loves. However is everyone gonna love them in a few years when they have to jack up their fees to 30 bucks a month because ISPs are charging them an arm and a leg so that they can have enough bandwidth to offer than content in anything higher than 144p? Are you gonna be happy when you have to pay for twitch prime to watch streams in higher than 480p because ISPs are charging twitch and twitch can no longer afford to provide high bandwidth streams for free? You're statement about the amount of porn streamed just shows how much you don't understand about how bandwidth works. There isn't a shortage of bandwidth, theres about to be a shortage of ISPs that are willing to provide bandwidth when they are allowed to charge big websites more.
No offense to you but its clear that you dont understand the technicalities of how the internet works nor do you understand how shitty the ISPs are in the United States. In my home city, the city had plans to lay fiber optic cables to allow the utility board to provide fiber to most of the people in the city. However, the ISPs lawyered up and are blocking it. Why? because it would provide competition and they would have to offer faster speeds at a more competitive cost. They're literally denying almost half a million people faster internet because it would force them to improve.
milku3459 wrote:Personally, I think it's because of their policy of throttling and silencing without explanation. Google and Facebook regularly ban and censor right-wing voices and messages (e.g. saying Donald Trump is not anti-muslim gets deleted, saying Facebook censors right-wing thought gets deleted, conservative content gets demonetized à la Diamond and Silk). The new rules iirc are ok with ISPs throttling stuff, as long as they fully disclose it and their reason for doing so to the public. If the new rules went through, then people might ask "if ISPs, even as a private enterprise, have to disclose who they throttle and ban, why are Google and Facebook exempt?" I think that's why Google and Facebook are supporters, they want to continue their very restrictive rule with zero accountability.
Last year, in the US alone, Pornhub users streamed 3,110 PETABYTES of high-fidelity ladies. That's 92 billion gigabytes. If porn were to be throttled, then much better service could be provided to other users who pay exactly the same price. It's not fair that my internet is slow because my neighbour insists on downloading 4k VR porn every night. Who knows, maybe Tit and Kynesie have such a neighbour. If throttling were allowed, then people would be encouraged to move to a dedicated "porn lane", paying for the much higher usage of data with a corresponding higher price. Like a tolled express lane in the US. The people who use more and slow down the network for everyone else ought to pay more and not burden others with their kinky habits. Isn't that fair?
I'm just gonna ignore the fact that you seem to think that only right wing content gets censored, cause thats just so blatant misinformation its not even worth responding to, let alone having absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. The reason anyone with a large website that isn't just text is because its essentially going to put power into the hands of the ISPs rather than consumers. Netflix is a great company that everybody loves. However is everyone gonna love them in a few years when they have to jack up their fees to 30 bucks a month because ISPs are charging them an arm and a leg so that they can have enough bandwidth to offer than content in anything higher than 144p? Are you gonna be happy when you have to pay for twitch prime to watch streams in higher than 480p because ISPs are charging twitch and twitch can no longer afford to provide high bandwidth streams for free? You're statement about the amount of porn streamed just shows how much you don't understand about how bandwidth works. There isn't a shortage of bandwidth, theres about to be a shortage of ISPs that are willing to provide bandwidth when they are allowed to charge big websites more.
Once again, this is just blatantly wrong. ISPs literally have quasi monopolies in the majority of the US, which repealing net neutrality isnt gonna do jack shit about. Most people have a choice between one or maybe two ISPs. And they are out to screw people over. ISPs are literally the shittiest companies in this country, because they can be. You can't leave them, because everyone needs internet, so they can afford to treat people like shit. Removing net neutrality just puts more power in the hands of people who everyone knows are shit. There's a reason that if you go to non alt right conservative subreddits while they aren't circle jerking like the left leaning ones they are just as worried about it. Funny thing is, in my city I get internet through the government run utility board. And guess what, my city has the 2nd best internet in the United States, and guess what, the only ISP in the area(comcast) offers plans that are over 10x faster than the plans they offer in the city where I moved from where they didn't have competition. They could offer plans that fast in my home city, but they dont want to cause they're shitty. Removing net neutrality will literally do nothing to promote competition, all it will do is take more money out of the pockets of regular people and give to ISPs.I have an opposite view. Currently, all internet is supposed to move at the same speed, forcing everyone to pay the same price. That's no incentive for upgrading and innovation on the part of the ISP--they're not out to screw you over, they just want your money. If you remove the free market incentive, you remove the free market benefits we have seen explode the internet over the last decade. If I'm from a poorer household, maybe only one person in the house uses internet to check emails for work, then I ought to be paying less than the family next door who games. Similarly, if I want faster internet so I can game, use more bandwidth, I should be able to pay for it and get it. Net neutrality forces the poor to pay too much and the people who can afford it don't have the option to get better service.
They already could screw each other over, they choose not to because its in their best interest and makes them the most money. All removing net neutrality does is allows them to charge websites to prioritize their traffic which in turn will charge you more.I think they benefit from a free market not because they have more chances to screw you over, but because they can start screwing each other over, charging competitively for different services, moving into different neighbourhoods, price wars, forcing them out of the market...all this stuff which happens to drive prices down for the consumer.
Once again totally inaccurate. The reason why its impossible to people to have startup internet companies is because how are they gonna lay wiring to thousands of houses over hundreds of miles. You think the current ISPs are gonna let them mooch of their equipment? Obviously not. You think they can commission the city to lay fiber optic cables for them or mooch of of the utility companies electrical wiring? Nope because the ISPs pay the right people so that doesn't happen. Literally having prioritized bandwidth won't do jack shit for helping startups. You just don't seem to understand that removing net neutrality isn't removing regulation on the market as much as it is allowing ISPs to regulate customers.I think the reason there's only one provider in an area is because there is zero motivation for people to move there and set up a service. The way competitors get into the market is by grabbing little niches of another company's base. With Net Neutrality, some new company can't move in and start a comparatively low-bandwidth, low cost service, or maybe a specific one for gamers with super fast service and higher prices. They are forced to provide the same service and price across the board. That stifles and kills competition, choking out the small companies and forcing the big ones to stagnate. If you regulate the free market, don't expect the benefits it brings of competition and lower prices.
Let's look at a comparable industry--mobile data. Do you remember how mobile data was 5 years ago? How is it now? Is it different? I am told it has improved a lot in terms of range, price and speed. How was your wifi 5 years ago? Do you see a similar kind of improvement? Do you remember the internet 5 years ago? What services did it offer? How has it changed? The free market enterprises of data and internet services have continued to stride forward, it is ISPs, hobbled by regulation, who cannot follow. That's my take on the subject.
No offense to you but its clear that you dont understand the technicalities of how the internet works nor do you understand how shitty the ISPs are in the United States. In my home city, the city had plans to lay fiber optic cables to allow the utility board to provide fiber to most of the people in the city. However, the ISPs lawyered up and are blocking it. Why? because it would provide competition and they would have to offer faster speeds at a more competitive cost. They're literally denying almost half a million people faster internet because it would force them to improve.
Re: net neutrality threatened
I wonder @milku3459. Where do you get your news? What communities, other than ESOC, do you visit?
- milku3459
- Howdah
- Posts: 1216
- Joined: Nov 8, 2016
- ESO: milku3459
- Location: in your base, killing your dudes
Re: net neutrality threatened
Aizamk wrote:Singaporean government propaganda
1mdb
- spanky4ever
- Gendarme
- Posts: 8390
- Joined: Apr 13, 2015
Re: net neutrality threatened
there is still hope that the net neutrality will not be a thing anytime soon:
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
-
- Jaeger
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: May 16, 2015
- ESO: Hyperactive Jam
Re: net neutrality threatened
Political institutions explicitly infiltrated by corporations.
- Laurence Drake
- Jaeger
- Posts: 2687
- Joined: Dec 25, 2015
Re: net neutrality threatened
Corporations implicitly infiltrated by political institutions.
Top quality poster.
Re: net neutrality threatened
Pay more attention to detail.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: net neutrality threatened
I actually think Ajit Pai is really brave, maybe the bravest person in the world.
Re: net neutrality threatened
deleted_user wrote:I actually think Ajit Pai is really brave, maybe the bravest person in the world.
Re: net neutrality threatened
jesus3 wrote:deleted_user wrote:I actually think Ajit Pai is really brave, maybe the bravest person in the world.
- Attachments
-
- .
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23506
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: net neutrality threatened
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Re: net neutrality threatened
I agree with some of the basic principles of net neutrality, but the implementation was awful. Classifying ISPs as a Title II common carrier imposed a lot of clunky regulations; and opened some gateways for government censorship. This situation is similar to what happened with the Affordable Care Act: The democrats were motivated by 'good' principles, but when they tried implementing those principles they ended up giving ridiculous kickbacks to large companies. The republicans noticed these problems and opposed the act. But attempts to repeal it were seen purely as disagreement with those 'good principles' rather than disagreement with the parts that are actually awful. But then - funnily enough - republicans, particularly politicians, who were sympathetic to those 'good principles' started actually disliking a lot of those principles. This gave Americans the lose-lose option of siding with the democrats and further enriching companies, or siding with the republicans and creating a wild-west.
It just seems like another scenario of congress not doing its job; and lemmings treating politics like sports teams. Ideally, I think that the legislature should create certain consumer rights for personal internet users, and separate, lesser rights for commercial entities, but that's not likely to happen. So the options are either suck it up side with bad-NN; or repeal everything (also bad) and hope that it gets replaced at some point, and that the replacement NN is better than the previous NN.
It just seems like another scenario of congress not doing its job; and lemmings treating politics like sports teams. Ideally, I think that the legislature should create certain consumer rights for personal internet users, and separate, lesser rights for commercial entities, but that's not likely to happen. So the options are either suck it up side with bad-NN; or repeal everything (also bad) and hope that it gets replaced at some point, and that the replacement NN is better than the previous NN.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests