| Pages:
1
2 |
RogueRose
International Hazard
Posts: 1585
Registered: 16-6-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Net Neutrality vote coming up - call your rep, sign petition, post on FB to tell others - SOMETHING!
Well the Trump admin has decided to give the ISP a HUGE Christmas present and give the "little people" a bag of coal ash/sludge/tailings by deciding
to end net neutrality. for those who don't know what it is, You NEED to find out. Here is a very informative video clip by John Oliver (love him or
hate him - he covers the topic very well for those who don't know). It basically gives TONS of power to the big tech companies (Google, Facebook,
Amazon, Ebay and the ISP's and allowing them to get much faster service than small sites like SciMad).
https://youtu.be/92vuuZt7wak
What you can do (AND DO IT ASAP!!!!!)
Call your rep(s)
Sign the petition
Send letter to FCC (maybe type "SAVE NET NEUTRALITY" on the outside of the envelope so they know immediately it is important - time wise)
Post on your Facebook, other forums and other social media so your friends will hear about it.
Here is a great page that links to everything above and shows how to do it
http://mashable.com/2017/07/12/net-neutrality-day-of-action-...
Here is a GREAT article from ARS Technica about the importance of Net Neutrality and how it will effect everyone (especially retail users and smaller
websites like this one and small business websites).
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/rip-net-neutrali...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/net-neutrality...
|
|
|
VSEPR_VOID
National Hazard
Posts: 719
Registered: 1-9-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fullerenes
|
|
It is not the place of the government to regulate the activities of private companies so long as they are not initialing force. In the United States
we place Freedom above all else, and yes, this includes the freedom for a private internet provider to limit the content they provide. Freedom never
guarantees order, happiness, or fairness. It only guarantees choice. One thing that everyone has now is the ability to change service providers,
kickstart/invent an alternative, or just download the Tor browser. Don't force your own opinions about net neutrality onto anyone else by using the
power of the Federal government. That being said its a good thing to contact your local representatives about issues you care about. If those
political parasites are going to eat up our tax dollars we should put their feet to the fire.
Please also format your posts in a manor that more resembles something that looks like it was written to convey meaningful information. All caps
writing is hard on the eyes just as Christmas metaphors are out of season until Thanksgiving.
[Edited on 22-11-2017 by VSEPR_VOID]
[Edited on 22-11-2017 by VSEPR_VOID]
Within cells interlinked
Within cells interlinked
Within cells interlinked
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
The flip side of Net Neutrality is that the people who operate the nuts-n-bolts of the actual network that people call 'Internet' have been robbed
continuously by the big corps, all in the name of 'Net Neutrality'.
Youtube, Google, Facebook, Netflix etc have made billions by using 'free' bandwidth, paid for and provided by the operators, e.g. Adverts from which
only they benefit.
As an operator, i would be very happy to see an end to Net Neutrality, as i could legally charge for the vast amount of bandwidth the Ad traffic uses,
which requires continuous investment in faster and faster kit as the tech becomes available.
It's either an end to neutrality, or back to per-byte billing.
(at $0.001 per byte i'd be a trillionaire tomorrow morning)
|
|
|
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
Net Neutrality is a good idea, but it needs to be established by legislation rather than the decree of a federal agency without lawful authority to
establish it.
|
|
|
VSEPR_VOID
National Hazard
Posts: 719
Registered: 1-9-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fullerenes
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by JJay  | | Net Neutrality is a good idea, but it needs to be established by legislation rather than the decree of a federal agency without lawful authority to
establish it. |
Yes, legislation is more congruent to the intent of the founding fathers than the decree of the President. I disagree that net neutrality is a good
idea for the reasons in my original post. What convinces you of your position?
Within cells interlinked
Within cells interlinked
Within cells interlinked
|
|
|
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
The insides of Internet packets are none of an ISP's business, and ISPs do not belong in a position where they can place restrictions on free speech.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by JJay | | The insides of Internet packets are none of an ISP's business, and ISPs do not belong in a position where they can place restrictions on free speech.
|
As an ISP i can agree with that 99.9%*
The argument is really about the sheer volume of unsolicited packets.
Un-metered internet packages were introduced as a sales advantage, also to benefit the end user.
Advertisers are taking advantage of that and ramming their undesired 'important messages' though networks that they pay nothing for.
It's a bit like 1 person going to an all-you-can-eat-for-$10 diner and having 200 hungry salesmen hiding under the table.
* there are some packets that should never exist. The originators definitely need to be either dead or in prison, e.g. child porn.
[Edited on 22-11-2017 by aga]
|
|
|
RogueRose
International Hazard
Posts: 1585
Registered: 16-6-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by VSEPR_VOID | It is not the place of the government to regulate the activities of private companies so long as they are not initialing force. In the United States
we place Freedom above all else, and yes, this includes the freedom for a private internet provider to limit the content they provide. Freedom never
guarantees order, happiness, or fairness. It only guarantees choice. One thing that everyone has now is the ability to change service providers,
kickstart/invent an alternative, or just download the Tor browser. Don't force your own opinions about net neutrality onto anyone else by using the
power of the Federal government. That being said its a good thing to contact your local representatives about issues you care about. If those
political parasites are going to eat up our tax dollars we should put their feet to the fire.
Please also format your posts in a manor that more resembles something that looks like it was written to convey meaningful information. All caps
writing is hard on the eyes just as Christmas metaphors are out of season until Thanksgiving.
[Edited on 22-11-2017 by VSEPR_VOID]
[Edited on 22-11-2017 by VSEPR_VOID] |
Please show how I wrote in all caps. the words that were caps that aren't "supposed" to be but were capitalized to add emphasis or urgency are "huge,
need, tons & great" and "AND DO IT ASAP" (whoops sorry bout that...) maybe 1-2% of the total words. The "SAVE NET NEUTRALITY" was written how I
would write it on the exterior of an envelope to draw attention.
Just because things are capitalized it doesn't mean yelling or screaming - it can be for emphasis or to show importance - at least that is what I've
learned from all the internet posts and writing I've seen.
I really can't believe you made a comment about this on a topic like this. If it was all caps or mostly, I'd understand, but I think you are a little
touchy.
On the real topic, I was unaware of some of the aspects mentioned in the replies. From the reports I've seen it seemed that the major tech companies
would get priority bandwidth while smaller sites suffered in lower prioritization or less bandwidth. The the ISP's would have the authority to make
sites they don't like basically unusable by reducing allowable bandwidth or priority in data requests.
I believe that the Internet is a utility and we pay taxes and fees (which are a tax) that support the infrastructure to allow everyone to connect to
whomever they like and do whatever they like (yeah CP is not something I nor anyone I know support). So if an ISP doesn't like a blog because of the
political leanings then they can make the site almost unusable to it's customers (if not blocking it all together).
As for having choices about choosing a different provider, well that may be the case in some areas but in some places (in the US) they are lucky to
get speeds a little faster than dialup of 20+ years ago (some places still only have dialup). The satellite argument is a non-starter for many people
b/c it is priced out or many people's price range and service can be pretty bad to horrible. the fact that the ISP's have gotten TONS of money from
the gov over the years as well as being able to keep all the "taxes and fees" that you see on your bill mean that the ISP's shouldn't be able to pick
and choose what they allow access to or allow different speeds to different sites.
As far as the advertisers pushing their ads onto users computers, I'm 100% against that as well and it is one of the things I hate most.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by RogueRose | | ... if an ISP doesn't like a blog because of the political leanings then they can make the site almost unusable to it's customers (if not blocking it
all together). |
That would only work for small, less popular sites, which would not create any gain for the ISP.
Blocking something like FB would just cause the customers to switch providers.
A cranky ISP randomly blocking stuff would soon disappear.
| Quote: Originally posted by RogueRose | | The satellite argument is a non-starter for many people b/c it is priced out or many people's price range and service can be pretty bad to horrible.
|
Satellite does work pretty well (in good weather) and for about 50 euros a month.
The thing is, it is a weird experience. The inherent > 1000ms latency causes you to wonder if you clicked something, so you click it again, then,
all of a sudden, the entire page content appears all at once, twice.
Gimme that gov's phone number. I want some.
There is just a small extra annual tax for being registered as an ISP here (Spain).
The USA is a whole different ball game - the Freedom to Favour Big Money tends to do a lot of harm to small start-ups.
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5102
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by aga | The flip side of Net Neutrality is that the people who operate the nuts-n-bolts of the actual network that people call 'Internet' have been robbed
continuously by the big corps, all in the name of 'Net Neutrality'.
|
Are you allowed to strike for higher pay?
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Sadly not.
Going on strike would simply lead to No Pay.
|
|
|
Twospoons
International Hazard
Posts: 1280
Registered: 26-7-2004
Location: Middle Earth
Member Is Offline
Mood: A trace of hope...
|
|
I thought the ISP's job was to sell you a connection to the internet, not decide what you should or shouldn't do with it. Which is the lesser evil:
ISP's loss of freedom to throttle some websites, or the customer's loss of freedom to wander the internet unimpeded? Makes me glad I'm not living in
the US.
Helicopter: "helico" -> spiral, "pter" -> with wings
|
|
|
Lurker
Harmless
Posts: 11
Registered: 6-11-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: Static
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Twospoons | | I thought the ISP's job was to sell you a connection to the internet, not decide what you should or shouldn't do with it. Which is the lesser evil:
ISP's loss of freedom to throttle some websites, or the customer's loss of freedom to wander the internet unimpeded? Makes me glad I'm not living in
the US. |
But the consequences would surely extend to other countries sooner or later, they could (or will) eventually reach you.
"The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind." — William Blake
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
ISPs mostly do not care what You access on your connection (unless you use their service for something illegal).
They DO care how much is used by 3rd parties using Your connection for free to send you shit you never asked for.
What is a 'connection to the internet' ?
Is it a license to 100% absorb a local resource for free (or next to) and deprive your neighbours of any internet at all ?
If your car uses 5 gallons of petrol (gasoline) this week, do you expect to pay More, or Less next week when you use 20 gallons ?
You expect to pay the same ? No, you'd expect to pay more.
Internet supply is kinda strange as people have no concept of what it is or what is required to make it work, so somehow assume it is all Free - it
isn't. It costs a Lot, daily.
Imagine the cost of putting in a bundle of fibre optic cables from the USA to Europe. Is that free ?
No, so why should people be able to use all of it's capacity, and for next to nothing ?
This kind of user attitude is forcing ISPs back to some form of metered billing, so you pay for what you use.
That way You will pay to receive those 'important messages' from advertisers, not Us.
Mobile providers have already gone half-way with the 'Data Allowance' thing.
20Gb for $100 a month etc. ($0.50 per Mb after that in the small print = Fortunes as you watch FB ads without even noticing)
|
|
|
Twospoons
International Hazard
Posts: 1280
Registered: 26-7-2004
Location: Middle Earth
Member Is Offline
Mood: A trace of hope...
|
|
Every 'unlimited data' contract I've seen has a fair use clause, which basically means if you try to download terabytes a day the ISP has the right to
stop you. I would have thought the cost of the unlimited data contract would be determined with that in mind, and typical usage patterns. And
frankly I doubt that advertising makes up a very big percentage of my daily usage, especially compared to streaming Netflix.
You also seem to be making out that we're getting data for next to nothing. But the bill arrives every month - and its a lot more than nothing.
Helicopter: "helico" -> spiral, "pter" -> with wings
|
|
|
Melgar
Anti-Spam Agent
Posts: 2004
Registered: 23-2-2010
Location: Connecticut
Member Is Offline
Mood: Estrified
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by VSEPR_VOID | | Yes, legislation is more congruent to the intent of the founding fathers than the decree of the President. I disagree that net neutrality is a good
idea for the reasons in my original post. What convinces you of your position? |
I can only imagine trying to sit George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, et al. down and explaining net neutrality to them. Would they have
an opinion? Would it matter?
I miss Barack Obama. At least when he was president, you got the sense that he actually understood problems, and had the country's best interests in
mind when he was making decisions. The current occupant of the office seems to have only sought it as a means to inflate his own ego beyond its
already enormous proportions, and seems to have little interest in actually governing.
The first step in the process of learning something is admitting that you don't know it already.
I'm givin' the spam shields max power at full warp, but they just dinna have the power! We're gonna have to evacuate to new forum software!
|
|
|
macckone
International Hazard
Posts: 2159
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
There seems to be a lot of misconceptions about what 'net neutrality' means and how bandwidth is charged and transmitted in the US. And
more importantly that this is a US issue.
1) Net Neutrality is more than just keeping comcast from blocking facebook.
It also includes googles ability to lay fiber in right of ways. This applies to companies both big and small. If net neutrality goes away so do
choices as the dominant player that had contracts that were ruled unenforceable due to net neutrality go back into effect and the local carrier can
now kick out competitors under their 'exclusive' right to the right of way. This has a major impact on small local service providers who will be shut
out.
2) google, facebook, et al pay a ton of money for bandwidth, it isn't free. They pay companies like centurylink and cogent for internet access.
Centurylink then works deals with companies like comcast and charter to exchange that data. These peering agreements generally have charges if there
is a traffic imbalance. For a small provider that has to pay centurylink and cogent for that same access it sucks because centurylink and cogent are
making money on both ends.
3) yes at&t and comcast can block specific posts not just 'all of facebook', they can also substitute their own ads if net neutrality goes away.
That is what aga is really wanting. comcast and at&t have previously done this, so this isn't hypothetical, this is why net neutrality came to be
in the first place. People forget when comcast blocked netflix, and they will again. And this time they will block hulu and anyone else they see as
competition.
4) this mainly impacts last mile customers with no alternatives, which is 80% of us residences. I am one of those customers. I pay $100 for 5M/512K
internet. I have no other wire line choices and I need internet that works when it is raining and snowing.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
I am honestly shocked.
Here your $100 a month would get you :-
300Mb/s symmetric/unlimited fibre
free mobile phone calls to any mobile or land line number (not international)
20Gb mobile data allowance (4G, so a max of 100Mb/s on your phone, normally ~20Mb/s)
about $3 change.
With no land line option a wifi provider could get you around 6~10Mb/s for around $40.
If $100 is the level of the market, the ISPs are raking it in, so it smells ripe for invasion.
Anyone over there feel like starting up a WiFi Internet business ? U2U if so.
|
|
|
macckone
International Hazard
Posts: 2159
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
I can get wifi but it is even more expensive. Plus without utility attachment rights, you can't really establish a wifi business.
|
|
|
metalresearcher
National Hazard
Posts: 731
Registered: 7-9-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: Reactive
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Twospoons | | I thought the ISP's job was to sell you a connection to the internet, not decide what you should or shouldn't do with it. Which is the lesser evil:
ISP's loss of freedom to throttle some websites, or the customer's loss of freedom to wander the internet unimpeded? Makes me glad I'm not living in
the US. |
For me the same and with that retired real estate businessman who is called a "president" things are getting worse...
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by macckone | | I can get wifi but it is even more expensive. Plus without utility attachment rights, you can't really establish a wifi business.
|
Wifi more expensive than wired sounds crazy to me.
Would you mind giving a brief explanation what 'utility attachment rights' are please ?
|
|
|
macckone
International Hazard
Posts: 2159
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
In the US, in order to get fiber to towers for wifi for example you have to get right of way to lay the fiber, either on telephone poles or existing
underground right of ways. This is also necessary for wired to the home connections. If you don't have 'utility attachement rights' you can't use
existing cell towers or telephone poles to mount any equipment. This means you will need to negotiate with each individual land owner to put up your
own towers or with a competitor to use their tower and they can charge whatever they want. Under the US net neutrality rules, you would be allowed to
attach to existing utilities at a 'fair market' rate. Meaning they couldn't price gouge you or refuse to allow you access. Before net neutrality
many ISPs got contracts with existing providers to give them exclusive rights to use their right of ways for internet service. With net neutrality
those contracts became illegal so players like google could now lay fiber as a utility. Those new fibers that depend on being a 'utility' would no
longer have valid rights and would now be subject to removal.
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4508
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
Wow macckone, that is some seriously expensive internet. I pay $60/month for 100 Mb/s. Split the bill with my two roommates (so just $20 for each of
us) and it's plenty of bandwidth to go around.
|
|
|
macckone
International Hazard
Posts: 2159
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
Yeah, I live in an underserved area so I don't get the good rates.
|
|
|
Twospoons
International Hazard
Posts: 1280
Registered: 26-7-2004
Location: Middle Earth
Member Is Offline
Mood: A trace of hope...
|
|
When you explain it that way net neutrality makes even more sense for the consumer, and I realise thats pretty much what we've had for some years in
NZ. Some years back our gov forced our biggest, and original, telco to split off the infrastructure side into a separate business. This was done to
level the playing field for other ISPs. Along with local loop unbundling, this has given us plenty of ISPs to choose from, plenty of competition, and
all the consumer benefits that come from that.
Spark, the telco that was forced to split, still made $400 million in profit last year, so despite the screaming, they're still doing just fine.
We're also fortunate that our gov sees broadband as a huge economic benefit, both to individuals and the country, so is laying fiber around the whole
country, instead of waiting for private companies to do it. Sometimes a little socialism is a good thing eh?
[Edited on 24-11-2017 by Twospoons]
Helicopter: "helico" -> spiral, "pter" -> with wings
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
