Eliminating Net Neutrality Rules Will Favor Carriers Over Internet Content Providers

[Azalin]

2 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Has anyone entertained the idea that westerndecline is just a bot, programmed with a bunch of stupid sentences?

 

Has anyone considered that he's likely just another sock puppet of the gatortroll?

[B-Man]

 Government Is the Cause of—Not the Solution to—Online Censorship: As people worry about the net neutrality vote, public officials threaten our rights to free speech.

 

 

True.

[westerndecline]

1 hour ago, Azalin said:

 

Has anyone considered that he's likely just another sock puppet of the gatortroll?

 

 

[Wacka]

21 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

A bot would appear smarter.  More likely he's working for the SOE, using the board to transmit coded messages to the maquis.  

John has a long mustache.

[/dev/null]

2 hours ago, Wacka said:

John has a long mustache.

 

 

[B-Man]

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

We had one particularly stupid poster contend we'd see blood in the streets rising to the level of a civil war over the end of Net Neutrality.

[Taro T]

53 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

We had one particularly stupid poster contend we'd see blood in the streets rising to the level of a civil war over the end of Net Neutrality.

 

 

And again (not directed @ you) what current nefarious practices will net neutrality stop here in the USA?

[KD in CA]

So when are they canceling the internet?

 

Will it really be as bad as the dark times before net neutrality, way back all those (2 or 3) dozens of months ago?

[Azalin]

3 hours ago, Taro T said:

 

 

And again (not directed @ you) what current nefarious practices will net neutrality stop here in the USA?

 

Not sure what you mean - NN was repealed, not implemented.

 

It's no longer a concern. That means that the internet can be the internet without further interference from the feds.

[Taro T]

9 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

Not sure what you mean - NN was repealedI not implemented.

 

It's no longer a concern. That means that the internet can be the internet without further interference from the feds.

 

 

Should've said "would" rather than "will."

 

Still trying to get a NN supporter to point out an actual occurring nefarious practice here in the US of A that NN would prevent.  Have seen much hand wringing over the now overturning of the non-implemented NN rule but no concrete examples of what actually gets cured  via NN.  

 

Most of what NN supporters bring up's along the lines of preventing censorship by ISP's which currently's not happening.

[Paulus]

Yeah, they're gonna face enough lawsuits to prevent this from happening for at least a month.

 

 

 

 

Not that this adds anything to the debate. But, neither do crappy maymays.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Paulus

[B-Man]

Have we collapsed yet ?

 

"One of the dangers of the internet is that people can have entirely different realities. They can be cocooned in information that reinforces their current biases."

 

That's Barack Obama, sounding like he's been reading Scott Adams's book.*

Obama was getting interviewed by Prince Harry... so it was When Harry Met Barack.

Obama bounced from his observation that we live in "entirely different realities" to groping for a solution. He got as far as articulating "the question":

“The question has to do with how do we harness this technology in a way that allows a multiplicity of voices, allows a diversity of views, but doesn’t lead to a Balkanization of society and allows ways of finding common ground.”

Harness this technology? Is that a euphemism for censorship? 

 

{snip}

 

* One of the main ideas in Scott Adams's book "Win Bigly" is "Two Movies on One Screen... the phenomenon in which observers can see the same information and interpret it as supporting two entirely different stories." For example:

When the presidential election of 2016 was over, reality split into two movies. Trump supporters believed that they had elected a competent populist to “drain the swamp” and make America great again. Their preferred media sources agreed. But anti-Trumpers had been force-fed, by both the mainstream media and Clinton’s campaign, a fire hose of persuasion that said Trump was the next Hitler. In effect, the Trump supporters and the anti-Trumpers woke up in different movies. One movie is a disaster movie and the other is an inspirational story.

The fascinating thing about this situation is each of us can operate in the world and do the things we need to do to survive. You and I can both go shopping, both drive cars, both have jobs and friends. Living in completely different realities is our normal way of living....

 

MUCH More at the link:

 

 

Observation:

Barack: "How do we harness this technology in a way that allows a multiplicity of voices..."

"We" = Government

 

 

.

 

[Azalin]

And here we are again.

 

Senate votes to overturn Ajit Pai’s net neutrality repeal:

 

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/senate-votes-to-overturn-ajit-pais-net-neutrality-repeal/

 

There's an incredible amount of propaganda flooding the net (the irony of which is hard to ignore) on the subject, but it appears that the house won't go along with the senate on this despite the push. Even if they do, I can't see the president signing any such legislation.

[row_33]

i can't even watch the weather network without them injecting hysteria into the daily forecast

 

 

[GG]

It's a side show

[row_33]

13 minutes ago, GG said:

It's a side show

 

it's a **** show

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

21 minutes ago, Azalin said:

And here we are again.

 

Senate votes to overturn Ajit Pai’s net neutrality repeal:

 

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/senate-votes-to-overturn-ajit-pais-net-neutrality-repeal/

 

There's an incredible amount of propaganda flooding the net (the irony of which is hard to ignore) on the subject, but it appears that the house won't go along with the senate on this despite the push. Even if they do, I can't see the president signing any such legislation.

 

I think Lankford's in denial of reality.

 

Small ISPs don't compete with the big guys in today's environment; they get absorbed by them.

 

[Azalin]

1 hour ago, GG said:

It's a side show

 

 

I hope that's all it amounts to. The misinformation campaign is massive, and they have a lot of people all but frothing at the mouth to have the web regulated.

 

1 hour ago, joesixpack said:

 

Small ISPs don't compete with the big guys in today's environment; they get absorbed by them.

 

 

Some do, some don't. By my experience, the smaller guys tend to get contracts with business and industry since that's more practical for them; they can set up private networks and maintain them easily.

 

Remember, smaller ISPs only need to have a first mile/last mile presence since the actual network is already in place.

[boyst]

4 hours ago, LikeIGiveADarn said:

 

Yeah, it's just annoying when folks are willing to cut off their noses just because "Obama was fer it so I'm against it!"

This is where your racism belongs, LGAD

 

I dislike NN because after convincing, reading and looking at actual coverage of it I changed my stance from pro to anti.  Small carriers and others support it. They carry the burden that Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, whatever don't have to and essentially get free rides in some ways.  I also don't approve of disrupting free trade and consumer choices whilst believing companies like Amazon and Apple, as well as Google to be dangerous.

 

But, you're new here. Read up on this thread and get back to us.