“Can I see your slingshot?”
“Why not? I won’t shoot anything.”
“Then why do you want it?”
“I just wanna hold it, I won’t use it, I promise.”
“Why would you want it, but not want to use it?”
“I wanna see something, just let me have it... and some rocks.”
“No, you’ll shoot something with it.”
“Nuh-uh! Come oooon!”
As much as it pains me to say my American friends, at times like this I am glad I live somewhere where this sort of thing gets stamped on by regulators before it's even proposed and net neutrality is written into the law.
Keep working on this you guys. And I mean do something useful; Twitter storms and finger wagging on Facebook don't count at this point. You live in a democracy goddamnit.
@DancingIsNotAdvised, It's supposed to be a democracy, yet we have a president that lost the popular vote. Gerrymandering, and lobbyist have turned the USA into corporate oligarchy.
@DancingIsNotAdvised, democracy would imply that we get to vote on laws. Technically it's a republic, where we elect officials who claim they will support our beliefs but more-or-less do whatever they want once they're in office. The president is a political puppet at this point, a corrupt Congress/Senate handle all the legislature and have no limit on their own salaries or term lengths
@Bronts Doggo, it’s not a democracy, it’s a democratic republic. That’s why we have the electoral college, because if we didn’t you’d only need to campaign in like 2 states to win the election. Ancient Greece had a democracy, and as great as they were any minorities living in Greece got completely shafted and no real say in anything.
@Bronts Doggo, Not to mention that the 5 people that are deciding the fate of net neutrality aren't elected officials. They're appointed by the president. So we can't even threaten to vote against them next time if they repeal it.
@DancingIsNotAdvised, I’ve written and called my representative and Congress. I honestly don’t have time for more at the moment, gotta slave away for the wage.
Only a matter of time before people get really fed up and start stringing up politicians
I'm trying to look at this from all sides. Clearly the providers don't want us to use TPB or other sites like TSR due to their unconventionality. While this is just, at the same time it allows them to possibly restrict our ability to communicate, share ideas, and have a say in anything. While I am a republican (loosely), this is really fncked up. Companies can push their agenda and prevent access to leftest/rightest news sites and basically have parental controls over their users. While yes, we may want to suppress neonazis and neocommunists, is that really constitutional? It's as if we're saying "we can all share ideas and be accepting of one another except for this one group of people less equal to us which is the EXACT SAME thinking that racsm is based upon". The problem isnt the news sources. The problem is that people aren't educated.
So we shouldn't revoke net neutrality.
@Tentastic, I’m not convinced that the telecom companies want to restrict access to content - I suspect that this is more about them being able to charge companies which generate a lot of traffic more money. They charge the end customer more for a faster connection/bigger data package and now they want to apply the same model to the other end of the supply chain.
I’m not defending them, supporting the idea or saying it’s a good thing (I support net neutrality) - just suggesting a different (but equally bastardish) reason for their action. Basically, I think it’s all about them wanting more money.
@Tentastic, I don't think that throttling of certain websights is really what this is about, I think @Nellybert hit at it but did not completely elaborate.
You and I go to the post office, I am shipping a 50lb box, you have an envelope and a letter. Would it be reasonable for us to expect the post office to charge us the same and for our packages to arrive at the same time? I think we would both say no.
Net neutrality is expecting the same thing from ISPs. If we really want to improve the internet ( or any other industry) the solution is not to regulate it more heavily. The best solution is to increase supply. How do we increase supply? Remove regulations that allow for local monopolies, make it easier to set up new cable networks and etc.
@Kliment Voroshilov, Your analogy is wrong. Because when you pay for an Internet speed you expect to get that Internet speed no matter what website you go to. You don’t expect for them to slow down content to particular website of their choice because they can. And because they want to make money like a mob protection on the local business. So the different light packages at the post office does not apply to this since you are already paying a set fee for the speed you get.
And The net didn’t have Title II regulations a few years ago. They were actually receiving government tax subsidies to help improve network infrastructure’s. You know what the Internet providers did. Claimed record profits and didn’t improve their networks. So this is one of those times where removed regulations was tried and we have things like Comcast one of the most hated corporations in the country because of the oligopolies. They make deals with each other so no other company encroaches on their territory.
@Kliment Voroshilov, net neutrality isn’t so much about regulating the Internet as a lot of people seem to think the government is trying to do. It’s about preventing anyone from controlling the flow of information. When you pay for Internet service you expect to get that service. You don’t expect them to secretly throttle down website you like to visit.
@Kliment Voroshilov, now if you want to propose a solution to deal with oligopolies. Perhaps Government crack down on it like they do monopolies. Since corporations in this country have found a solution to deal with the law that prevents monopolies. Through oligopolies that make deals with each other so they don’t have to compete.
I have no problem with capitalism. But it doesn’t always work when companies do things like this. That’s when it’s time for the government to step in.
@Seohn, Let me clarify something.
My analogy works for websights, not individual users. Users are honestly small potatoes. Removing net neutrality would allow them to charge corporations that use huge amounts of data for that data. Hence the 50lb box vs letter example.
Receiving government subsidies =/= deregulating. They shouldn't have revived the subsidies in the first place. Open the market and force them to compete. The deals you talk about sounds a lot like price fixing which unless I'm mistaken is already supposed to be illegal.
Let's accept though for a minute that they would throttle websights they didn't like if we removed net neutrality and deregulated the market. If that was the case you could switch to a different provider who doesn't do that. You wouldn't be forced to remain with that provider.
@Seohn, ISPs don't represent monopolies. At least not in the traditional sense. A monopoly requires that a corporation has complete control of the market.
There are smaller scale monopolies for example the town I lived in signed an exclusive contract with I believe it was time Warner and Verizon.
My solution goes a bit like this:
1. Remove regulations governing the building of networks.
2. Remove net neutrality
3. Make exclusivity agreements (such as the one described above) illegal.
Competition takes over, businesses such as Netflix and Google who use huge amounts of bandwith can be charged for that use. Net effects will probably be your ISP bill goes down and possibly your Netflix subscription goes up by a small amount.
@Kliment Voroshilov, Your analogy about the post office is still incorrect. The reason being because Netflix for example doesn’t send data unless you, the user, request that data. So it’s not Netflix sending you a package through the mail. Its you requesting a package to be sent. Which means you’re the one paying for the data to come to you. Plus Netflix already pays for their Internet connection. The problem with not having net neutrality is when Netflix has data that goes through another company‘s network. Such as if Netflix was using Spectrum as their service provider and you were using Comcast. The moment that Netflix’s data hits your Comcast network. Comcast can slow it down The data coming from Spectrum without net neutrality. So that’s why your post office analogy does not work.
@Seohn, Does Netflix require more data volume to function than a text based sight?
@Kliment Voroshilov, how about this. How about they make exclusive agreements in areas illegal. And make it illegal to handle all data differently. Free flow of information. You as a user pay for a service you expect to get that service. If I pay for 100 Mb connection. I expect to get that connection no matter what website I go to.
@Kliment Voroshilov, that doesn’t matter if Netflix uses more data. If their networks can’t handle it. Then they should throttle back the users by selling smaller data packages. Not throttle back information coming from another Internet providers network. Or they could take those government subsidies and tax cuts that were designed to improve networks and actually use it for that instead of reporting record profits.
@Kliment Voroshilov, or how about this. Let their networks bottleneck because of too much data flowing through it. At least then all informational still be treated fairly. But I suspect that their networks can handle the traffic. They really just want to make money through mob protection style tactics. They see a large corporation and think hey let’s see if we can shake them down for more money and hurt their users in the process.
@Seohn, yes it does matter and if you answer my question I can explain why.
@Kliment Voroshilov, it does not matter if Netflix uses more data. The point is you pay to receive data at a speed. They are trying prevent you from receiving data at the speeds you pay for unless the website you like pays a ransom. Its similar to censoring. The point of net nueteality is to treat all Data the same (1’s and 0’s, Hex or whatever). Whether its text or not is irrelevant. And in a lot of places no you cannot just switch providers. Because there’s only one broadband access in those areas. (Monopoly). And an oligopoly is very similar to monopoly perhaps you should look it up. Yes Internet providers aren’t a monopoly technically. But it’s just the same when they use business practices to prevent competition most areas. For example you can’t get Comcast and spectrum in the same area.
@Kliment Voroshilov, your problem is you’re hung up on this whole text should be treated differently than video. Data is data when it flows through the routers and networks that make up the Internet. It’s irrelevant if it’s video or text because it’s all the same as it’s flowing through the network. Bits of information. If these companies are really having network bottlenecks. Then so be it.
H3H3 has a podcast on youtube about net neutrality. Skip the 1 hour 10 minutes. They talk about some of the things that ISPs have done and it’s really good explanation of Net Neutrality.
@Seohn, It does matter. The volume of data is not irrelevant. There is a limited amount of bandwith that is available it is not unreasonable that the heaviest data users should be charged a premium for the bandwith.
Did you miss the part where I said there are local monopolies? I am not denying that. I am saying that if we removed net neutrality and other regulations and the providers were forced to compete you would have additional options rather than one provider.
@Kliment Voroshilov, A better analogy is toll roads. Say you pay for the roads in your hometown but you go to another city and get charged the moment you cross their border to use their roads. Even though those roads are already being given tax credits and subsidies. Except the vast majority of people dont support this business practice and believe it stifles competition because small business cant afford to pay to use the roads in that town when traveling between them to send and receive products.
@Kliment Voroshilov, No it would not force them to compete. You need to look up how business is nowadays and how they like to corporate consolidate and buy other small businesses. An example is the merger that’s proposed between spectrum and AT&T.
this idea that suddenly there would be competition is false. Because if that were the case we would not have needed net neutrality to begin with. The internets been around for a long time net neutralitys only been around for a couple years and it’s because of the shady business practices that caused it to be preposed and exists. There were well over 20 million people that raise their voice against the shady practices and that’s why was originally proposed to begin with.
@Kliment Voroshilov, like competition. Let the data speak for itself. If the service bottlenecks and the Internet provider can’t handle it. Then their competition will take there place. Net Neutrality protects and allows all data to be treated equally. If the Internet provider can’t handle the data traffic. Then I guess corporate competition will weed them out. After all you keep saying let corporate competition handle it. The governments just trying to protect the service you pay for. You pay to receive data at a specific speed. Why would you want to let an ISP determine whose website you can visit. It’s your data that you pay for.
@Seohn, "Because if that were the case we would not have needed net neutrality to begin with" this is false. Net neutrality is not even the most significant regulation in this case. Competition was stifled allowing these "oligopolies" to form before net neutrality. It is much more important to end exclusivity agreements and make network expansion and improvement much easier.
@Kliment Voroshilov, True. But until that happens. Prevents government and businesses from restricting the flow of information is important. It will be even after. But getting rid of net neutrality will not increase competition or prevent oligopolies.
@Seohn, So despite the fact that they formed in absence of net neutrality we still need it to protect from the oligopolies? Net neutrality is part of the regulations that cause the problem.
I think however we have reached an impasse. Will you shake my hand and go in peace? Figuratively.
@Kliment Voroshilov, I think you’re misinformed as to what neutrality is. Net neutrality had nothing to do with the formation of oligopolies. Quite the opposite really. Do you know what title II is? Which is what broadband is classified as now? Allowing Datas to flow unrestricted at the speed you pay for. Does nothing to prevent competition or the creation of monopolies and oligopolies. Telling ISPs that they can’t censor the data you pay for in no way stifles competition. Quite the opposite really because large corporations who can afford it can pay for faster speeds to allow their information to flow through the networks quicker. Small businesses won’t be able to. Net neutrality levels the playing field. If the large ISPs can’t handle providing the speeds that their customers pay for. Then perhaps another Internet provider will step in and provide a better service. Oh wait, they can’t because in the vast majority of areas there’s only one broadband provider. Even longer before Net N
@Kliment Voroshilov, All that matters is they can come up with the way that treats all data on the Internet equally. And keeps it free and open. I’ll support that. I don’t like the idea nor will I support a businesses restricting my freedom of speech and the website I visit. I to pay access the Internet and I expect to get what I paid for.
The idea that ISPs will “stick to their word” using an honor system. Is laughable. And to be quite honest anyone who believes they would stick this is really quite gullible. They’ve already proven they can’t stick to their word when they perform major mergers. Such as mergers Comcast have done in the past. And have explicitly said they weren’t going to do something and turned right around and did it.
@Seohn, I think you are entirely wrong and your understanding of how routing works is laughable.
But this furthers the point that this discussion has reached its useful end.
Now please shake my hand and go in peace.
@Kliment Voroshilov, You realize that routing of networks is not really that complicated. For example you have a server at a location. You request data from that location the request travels from your house from your modem. Through your ISPs trunk network connecting to your local or the nearest station. It then route through those networks and several other routers and various other network equipment until it hits its destination. Then the server that you’re requesting information from repeats the process by sending it back through the shortest route. Not that complicated. I went to school for information technology this is the most simplistic way to explain it. That’s essentially all it is. Data traveling through cables routers and other various network equipment. The only time that data gets slowed down is if you have network equipment is either bogged down, faulty, or specifically restricting access speeds from various addresses or routes....
@Kliment Voroshilov, which is why network devices are designed to automatically find the fastest route. When your data hits a location that is bogged down or having issues. It reroutes to a faster location. In the case of net neutrality the idea is Comcast can completely block information coming from outside their networks or slow it down. So there’s no way for it to reroute around those transfer points.
@Kliment Voroshilov, Here’s a hypothetical for you. So you’re sitting at home you decide you want to watch Hulu, Netflix or Amazon prime. But your Internet provider Comcast suddenly decides. Hey I’m going to slow down the traffic from those three people. And you’re not gonna be able to stream but in the lowest crappy quality possible. But guess what you’re paying 100 Mb connection. It only takes 5 Mb in order to get high definition from those sites. 25 Mb if you want UHD. Now you’re pissed off because you think you’re having network problems. Call your provider turns out they tell you Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu or not paying for higher speeds to allow their data to flow from outside networks through their networks like any other data. Why are these companies not paying for this. Because they decided they’re not going to be mobbed into paying protection money. What can you do about it. Comcast is the only broadband service in your area. How do you supposed to resolve this problem?
@Kliment Voroshilov, you’re paying for a 100 Mb connection what are you going to do? The only people in the area that provide speeds above 3 Mb is that one ISP.
@Kliment Voroshilov, I’v be informed that I should explain the internet as just a series of tubes.
@Seohn, I'm done. There is clearly no way to reason with you and you are unwilling to shake hands and go in peace.
@Kliment Voroshilov, I can be reasoned with just fine. I even give you a better example of an analogy that properly embodies you’re view. The post office analogy is incorrect. Since Net Neitrality is more about data being handed from one network to another and that data being throttled or blocked when it crosses over.
You cant even answer my hypothetical. Then saying I’m unreasonable doesn’t negate any of my points or prove me wrong.
Heres is a good article that explains Net Neutrality. And even shows exactly what Title II is as there is a screen shot from the FCC shown.
@Kliment Voroshilov, I can agree to disagree. But I will not let the service I pay for be slowed because my ISP doesn’t like the websites I visit. Which is what you’re saying I should tolerate and support.
saying let the market sort it out. Just will not work. Because there’s no competition there to help sort it out. Until that’s resolved net neutrality protects our freedom on the Internet and the service you pay for. Fix that the problem first.
something to think about. No competition also means that they don’t have to invest money in improving their network infrastructure. Which is why Comcast is one of the most hated companies in the US. And they support doing away with net neutrality.