aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
No it doesn't work that way and no NN does not prevent it. You literally have no understanding of what you are talking about.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Net Neutrality Protests Move Online, Yet Big Tech Is Quiet
- Thread starter Megalith
- Start date
No it doesn't work that way and no NN does not prevent it. You literally have no understanding of what you are talking about.
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
There is literally nothing factual in that roger stone article except perhaps that the quotes are actual quotes. Literally everything else is a blatant lie and misinformation.
Cmdrmonkey
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,011
The time to do something about this was in the last election. It's a partisan issue. If you feel strongly about net neutrality, vote for Democrats. Slacktivism on websites and social media isn't going to stop this from happening.
Esstee
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2006
- Messages
- 62
I hate to be the barer of bad news, but this is going to pass no matter what people say and do. And all of the reactions that are taking place now are merely a part of the roll-out process. In short, there's nothing we(the people) can do to stop it.
That's why all the big companies are being quiet - they know better. And so now, it's all a matter of working through the blowback, and keeping it feeling as though we all have control on matters. While the powers at be slowly divulge their decision. Which was incidentally, made long before this moment btw.
Long live democracy - best political word ever made!
That's why all the big companies are being quiet - they know better. And so now, it's all a matter of working through the blowback, and keeping it feeling as though we all have control on matters. While the powers at be slowly divulge their decision. Which was incidentally, made long before this moment btw.
Long live democracy - best political word ever made!
Last edited:
We have a word for that: Anarchy. Turns out it's not actually "the best."
I wouldnt go that far. My statement would be "if we have to pass a law on it we have failed as a society to self regulate." Laws should be our last resort to solving a problem. Why? Because government always fucks it up.
Bullshit, stop pandering for your particular political party.
dgingeri
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,830
No, they couldn't. You obviously don't understand what I am talking about. There is no way to "set their QOS to top priority" in a proper quality of service system, as it would be set by the network, not by the packet. The way QoS is set up currently (IEEE 802.1p) would obviously not work for actual quality of service uses, and that's not what ISPs even use anymore.
im glad this is not happening in Canada. But youd think companies like google and facebook would want to make sure their revenue streams are not interrupted.
i use facebook, but i sure wouldn't pay extra too maintain access, same with google services
i use facebook, but i sure wouldn't pay extra too maintain access, same with google services
dgingeri
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,830
In those cases, actual competition would fix every one of those things, while government interference would not. (Some of those are things I would not even consider wrong, like zero rating. That's the business of the asset owners, not the government.) If people would stop handing power over to the companies that are abusing them, then we wouldn't have many of these problems. Stupid people complaining about how Verizon and AT&T ar treating them and yet staying with them anyway are the biggest problem. I got sick of how those two treated me, so I switched, first to T-mobile and later to Project Fi from Google. T-mobile doesn't screw anyone over, and yet so few people actually switch to them. It's idiocy.
Huh.. Big tech is quiet.. Interesting... I think they do understand they need to become ISPs themselves, be it wireless, fiber, wired or any combination.
Google purchased webpass, I think that is hybrid, so very interesting.
Maybe they thought about it logically, ISPs are never going to stop their aggressive moves, and regulatory capture, hence they need to become ISP themselves in order to have any protection from meddling.
Google purchased webpass, I think that is hybrid, so very interesting.
Maybe they thought about it logically, ISPs are never going to stop their aggressive moves, and regulatory capture, hence they need to become ISP themselves in order to have any protection from meddling.
Master_shake_
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 17,794
Title 2 section 224 forbids isps from making it difficult for other third party isps to use their poles.
Guess where title 2 is?
Also zero rating is a terrible.practice because ALL DATA IS THE SAME DATA.
Also with net neutrality zero rating is stopped.
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
The part that's missing is how things got reversed and why. Was it regulation/FTC/some regulatory body which fined them/took them to court? Or was it the market and their customers switching and them reversing their boneheaded decisions?
Riptide_NVN
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 2,062
People say that greedy corporations will charge us for as much as they can get away with.
If that is the case then apparently they haven't gotten the memo. How many are going to cancel access entirely and disconnect if you have to pay more each month for netflix or facebook or whatever? Aren't you already being charged as much as you are willing to pay?
If that is the case then apparently they haven't gotten the memo. How many are going to cancel access entirely and disconnect if you have to pay more each month for netflix or facebook or whatever? Aren't you already being charged as much as you are willing to pay?
Reading this thread makes me despair for those affected by this. The lack of basic intelligence by some here is simply breathtaking.
And now on to the subject at hand... I would have thought that anyone with a brain would know by now how this is going to end! All this call your representative BS, writing/petitioning, or hoping that Google and Apple etc will save the day, has just not ever been on the cards! The decision was made long ago when Pai was put in charge by Trump. He knows it, lies and virtually boasts about his disrespectful attitude towards the public, and anything they have to say, to anyone that will listen. He undermines public trust, as well as its role in the decision making process, and simply does not care what you all think, because you simply have no say in the matter. It’s a done deal, has been all along.
Now on to the results of all this...
The first stage of what happens to you will be obvious, price hikes and throttling of certain services and sites, with “packages” to restore the service to what it is now, all for a reasonable price, I’m sure. This is to keep the ISP corporations happy and even more profitable, so that they will happily perform the next stage that your government has planned for you, which is what this is really all about, and that’s installing the Great American Firewall and censorship framework (they already know everything you do and say, they just need to take control of what you see and hear). This stage will be done quietly, and most likely, and predictably, in the name of keeping Americans safe, and countering cyber warfare, but the real reason will be to control what you see and hear in this digital information age, especially from sources outside of America. And the best part is that you, by your inaction would have given your government the blessing it needed to do it!
Good luck to you all.
And now on to the subject at hand... I would have thought that anyone with a brain would know by now how this is going to end! All this call your representative BS, writing/petitioning, or hoping that Google and Apple etc will save the day, has just not ever been on the cards! The decision was made long ago when Pai was put in charge by Trump. He knows it, lies and virtually boasts about his disrespectful attitude towards the public, and anything they have to say, to anyone that will listen. He undermines public trust, as well as its role in the decision making process, and simply does not care what you all think, because you simply have no say in the matter. It’s a done deal, has been all along.
Now on to the results of all this...
The first stage of what happens to you will be obvious, price hikes and throttling of certain services and sites, with “packages” to restore the service to what it is now, all for a reasonable price, I’m sure. This is to keep the ISP corporations happy and even more profitable, so that they will happily perform the next stage that your government has planned for you, which is what this is really all about, and that’s installing the Great American Firewall and censorship framework (they already know everything you do and say, they just need to take control of what you see and hear). This stage will be done quietly, and most likely, and predictably, in the name of keeping Americans safe, and countering cyber warfare, but the real reason will be to control what you see and hear in this digital information age, especially from sources outside of America. And the best part is that you, by your inaction would have given your government the blessing it needed to do it!
Good luck to you all.
Last edited:
dgingeri
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,830
Both Title 2 and net neutrality are forbidding companies and people from doing things ON THEIR OWN EQUIPMENT! They own it, they should be able to do what they want with it. If the customers don't like it, they can go elsewhere. Duh. The equipment owners shouldn't be forced to share resources THEY PAID FOR. That goes against everything the 4th amendment stood for.
If you bought a car with seating for 5, and because of those 5 seats the government forced you to transport 2 homeless people while you travel to and from work every day, wouldn't you have a problem with that? That's the SAME THING.
Wierdo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,817
Big corporations like Facebook, Google, Amazon and Netflix don't really mind removing Net Neutrality anymore because they're the big players in their respective markets. Without NN they will dominate completely without chance of competition, there will not be another Facebook replacement if the startup can't pay for the "fast lanes" that established players could easily afford.
Basically bad for small businesses and new entrepreneurs, great for big outfits.
Equipment they received government subsidies and rent free use of public lands for. Oh and government enforced easements onto private lands...
Track Drew
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 511
What? They all currently do...
Multiple ISPs offer DDoS protection - so they're breaking the rules? My company currently pays for one, can we get a refund for being charged for an "illegal service"?
http://www.centurylink.com/business/enterprise/it-security/ddos-mitigation.html
http://www.verizonenterprise.com/view/solnsbriefs/12288/ddos-protection-service:-ddos-shield
https://business.comcast.com/ethernet/dedicated-internet/threat-management
https://www.business.att.com/solutions/Service/cybersecurity/threat-management/ddos-protection/
dgingeri
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,830
All because of government interference. We need to stop that just as much as the monopolies they hold. Competition is the fix for this, not more (untrustworthy) government regulation. Giving more power to the government does NOT fix anything. It will merely allow more power to the corporations to keep competition out while curtailing our choices, and promoting a new aristocracy.
Net neutrality merely allows the current ISPs to keep what they have, under rules that allow them to screw us over a little less. Eliminate net neutrality and the ISPs' monopolies, and we'll get some REAL freedom, and screwed over less.
Master_shake_
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 17,794
No it isn't bad analogy is bad.
Utilities have to share infrastructure.
Sorry it's just how utilities work.
Pretty sure the owner of the pole still gets paid.
But a reasonable amount not eyewatering
Fine, get that damn telephone pole out of my yard and then we will talk.
But the land owner does not.
Master_shake_
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 17,794
That is an issue.
Last edited:
Scanning traffic is scanning traffic. It would take no less resources for them to do it than any of the many IDS/IPS providers out there. I would never trust this at the ISP level, especially if NN is revoked. How would you know if they are blocking/throttling packets as 'spam' because they haven't gotten their money from both ends? That's what they've done before, and what they are chomping at the bit to start again, because money.... I mean because it's 'stifling rollout/upgrades and hurting the poor little multi-billion dollars ISPs....' They should route traffic, no filtering/manipulating/throttling, that's it.
Navilor
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2009
- Messages
- 193
From my limited understanding only one portion of one rule regarding net neutrality is going to be changing and that is in the Open Internet Order (OIO).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010
Specifics of OIO can be found in the PDF below.
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
Under the new plan it will transfer ISP oversight from the FCC back to the FTC and remove it from Title II regulations.
https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1122/DOC-347927A1.pdf
The section "The Radicalism of the Pai Proposal" is nothing but fear mongering.
FTA:
In short, with a few exceptions, the FCC plans to give up any role in policing how the telephone and cable carriers treat traffic on their networks.
https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-breaks-with-50-years-of-history
While technically true, they failed to mention that the duties will be taken over by the FTC who previously held that responsibility. In addition the OIO still allows companies to block and filter content (illegal and unsafe content only), but does not allow anti-competitive behavior. Again, that part is not changing, only who is enforcing it. The FCC allows ISPs to block content when they specifically state a service that they provide is not neutral. From page 17 in the PDF:
"the rule does not apply to an ISP holding itself out as providing something other than a neutral, indiscriminate pathway—i.e., an ISP making sufficiently clear that it provides a filtered service involving the ISP’s exercise of editorial discretion."
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...E13852581130053C3F8/$file/15-1063-1673357.pdf
Details here:
https://www.fiercewireless.com/wire...ed-by-narrowness-d-c-court-s-title-ii-reading
Additional commentary on net neutrality can be found over at the Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2017/03/the-tangled-web-of-net-neutrality-and-regulation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010
Specifics of OIO can be found in the PDF below.
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
Under the new plan it will transfer ISP oversight from the FCC back to the FTC and remove it from Title II regulations.
https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1122/DOC-347927A1.pdf
The section "The Radicalism of the Pai Proposal" is nothing but fear mongering.
FTA:
In short, with a few exceptions, the FCC plans to give up any role in policing how the telephone and cable carriers treat traffic on their networks.
https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-breaks-with-50-years-of-history
While technically true, they failed to mention that the duties will be taken over by the FTC who previously held that responsibility. In addition the OIO still allows companies to block and filter content (illegal and unsafe content only), but does not allow anti-competitive behavior. Again, that part is not changing, only who is enforcing it. The FCC allows ISPs to block content when they specifically state a service that they provide is not neutral. From page 17 in the PDF:
"the rule does not apply to an ISP holding itself out as providing something other than a neutral, indiscriminate pathway—i.e., an ISP making sufficiently clear that it provides a filtered service involving the ISP’s exercise of editorial discretion."
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...E13852581130053C3F8/$file/15-1063-1673357.pdf
Details here:
https://www.fiercewireless.com/wire...ed-by-narrowness-d-c-court-s-title-ii-reading
Additional commentary on net neutrality can be found over at the Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2017/03/the-tangled-web-of-net-neutrality-and-regulation
You only need to look back about a hundred or so years to see how a lack of regulations plays out. Corporations colluding to fix the market, monopolies run rampant, employees are treated like garbage (or outright beaten), and much worse.
The reason we have anti-monopoly laws is because of people like Rockefeller and Standard Oil who played absolutely dirty to sink any competition. Most specific regulations get their start because of abuses to the system. The 2008 crash was heavily assisted because of DEREGULATION that allowed for very risky investment vehicles to be packaged and sold.
You can't have capitalism without some regulation. For starters, regulations decide tort/contract laws which is a necessity for business. They give the economy the structure it needs to operate.
So please, if you're going to spout this "regulation is bad for a free market" at least do some history reading first.
Also, FYI, regulations often have the same effect as law (regs are also referred to as administrative law).
Last edited:
stealthballer123
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2017
- Messages
- 299
unregulated capitalism=plutocracy
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
The network? So we're just going to assume that a distributed hive of simple switches is omniscient now? It sounds like you lack an understanding of the theory of QoS and how it can work both theoretically and practically. Just like how you fail to understand how DDOS attacks work and why all of your ideas wouldn't actually stop them.
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
It is all those coal miner/factory workers fault. If they didn't want dangerous working conditions for no pay, they should of never came here. Never mind the Pinkertons, there just here to maintain public safety, they'd never do anything illegal like coerce or intimidate workers....
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
"Dammit I own this gun and bullets and I'll damn well shoot it where ever I damn well want. It is your own damn fault for being in the way."
"Dammit I own this factory, you don't get to tell me how to dispose of waste product. I paid good money to be able to dump it into the river."
"Dammit I own this car. Who does the government think it is telling me I have to meet emissions standards"
Etc.
ISPs may own some equipment, but their entire business is based off use of various government resources. And if they think the government is violating the 4th, then they are perfectly free to sue. FYI, that literally hasn't worked since the FCC was founded. The US government has all the power required by the FCC spelled out in the US Constitution: interstate commerce clause.
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
The FTC literally doesn't have the authority to do much more than deal with advertising fraud. The whole shebang depends on the ISPs saying, we'll do X and then doing Y when they are perfectly capable of saying we'll do Y and then doing Y. In fact, they basically said they'll do Y.
The FTC simply cannot do what the FCC can and anyone saying they can are either a paid shill or an ignorant fool.
King of Heroes
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2008
- Messages
- 2,006
On the one hand, its a great thing that big tech is staying quiet. Now NN opponents can't use them as a distraction (e.g. "See net neutrality is bad because these billion dollar tech companies support it! You should totally sympathize with the billion dollar ISPs that oppose it!")
On the other hand, this makes supporters much easier to ignore since they lack the political influence and cash that big tech has.
On the other hand, this makes supporters much easier to ignore since they lack the political influence and cash that big tech has.
The big players are sitting are strangely quiet? Well, its kinda hard for Google and Amazon to scream too loudly right now when they are pissing all over each other doing exactly what they claim the ISPs need to be "regulated" to prevent.
Ironic timing, don't you think?
Ironic timing, don't you think?
dgingeri
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,830
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
Oh look, more fact free propaganda likely paid for by the big ISP monopolies. Its almost like all these fact free propaganda pieces against NN are paid for and written off of the same cheat sheet...
Master_shake_
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 17,794
oh shit i thought that was the EFF.
i guess there's a little irony the ISP propaganda one is FEE.
i guess there's a little irony the ISP propaganda one is FEE.
dgingeri
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,830
FEE is NOT propaganda for the cable companies. It is dedicated to informed economic education for and about free markets, including many famous economists as instructors.
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
That article WAS propaganda for the cable companies and if that represents the quality of the other works by FEE then they certainly aren't dedicated to informed economic education for or about anything.
dgingeri
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,830
What part?
That treating anything like public utilities brings about stagnation and horrible service? That's truth. Name one single public utility that doesn't have horrible service or actually innovates in any way, unless forced by law. Phone companies did nothing to advance their technology until after it had been advanced in other countries, and those changes forced upon them by order of Congress. Electrical providers don't bring in new technologies until it is forced upon them and paid for by tax money, even though they make far more than enough profit to reinvest and improve things. The customer service in ALL utilities are absolutely horrible, and won't actually repair anything unless forced into it.
Do you honestly think that our situation would improve treating ISPs as public utilities? We'll just have a constant stall far behind the rest of the world in our connection technology, worse than we're even getting now, and our current customer service woes won't come close to how bad it will get.
You're not wrong, but I'm REALLY getting tired of people blaming the government. That's US. The reason public utilities suck is because WE SUCK. Imagine what would happen if people actually fired their state representatives/senators when their public utilities suck.
It's the same argument like socialized medicine and I get it. I want to be able to use my money I've earned to skip ahead of the mediocrity and get something actually decent. Nothing wrong perse, but people will be left behind.
dgingeri
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,830
The reason public utilities suck has a 2 fold reason: first, a public utility has a monopoly by definition, and then couple that with the fact that the penalties for bad service are never enforced, this stems from the public employees' attitudes that better performance is never rewarded and worse performance is never punished in public jobs, so they don't enforce it elsewhere, combined with the public utilities donating campaign funds to politicians who keep them from getting in trouble. So, public utilities end up as the same as direct public government jobs, nobody does anything well because it is not rewarded and they do the barest minimum because bad performance is never punished.
Free markets are never like this because poor performance is punished harshly, by people taking their business elsewhere. If someone performs poorly, they lose their income. If someone performs well, they are able to charge more, and thus get more reward for the better work.
I don't necessarily think a monopoly to be a damning thing --I think the problem is one of culture - I will admit I am very biased and probably a bit naive in that I come from a public 'utility' aka the Fire Service. While our performance isn't necessarily production based, we generally have a solid reputation for performance. Shittiness is generally self-policed and stamped out.
Do I think you could somehow transfer the positive culture of the Fire Service to a more mundane field like a public utility...realistically, probably not. Like most government services, good luck getting Janice to be excited to help you at the DMV. (and yet, depending on what area you are in, you CAN get quality service.)
My main point is the punishment that would make performance improve will ALWAYS begin with the electorate. If a politician is absolutely convinced he will lose his job or even go to jail because of allegations of bribery, because of an extremely involved and vocal citizenry, things are going to change for the better. ( You can see little glimmers of this happening when someone tweets to city hall about some crappy experience and city hall actually jumps on it. It's few and far between but it is possible. )
Now if you can figure out how to get people involved in the political process beyond simple bitching on the internet, see me after class, we'll both make a lot of money..