Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,141,865 times
Reputation: 2677
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
Tesla is trying to change the lack of competition and the bandwidth problem by launching 12000 satelites to provide internet access.
Wonder if he'll do a better job? I had DirecWay satellite internet for six years. It sucks. You get "frapped" out (using too much bandwidth) almost daily. Gaming, Netflix and other streaming sites forget about them, because they are not usable. All that for $100 or more a month.....
net neutrality stops ISPs from being able to charge more to access certain sites, or to charge businesses to have access at all. The argument against net neutrality is that ISPs should not be able to charge for specific websites, otherwise they could turn the internet into a glorified subscription service.
The arguments for it are the fact that it's estimated netflix could use up to 75% of internet bandwidth thus it's appropriate to charge people more to use that service or make netflix pay the ISP directly to have access based on how much bandwidth is used.
Net neutrality is akin to lumping all the TV channels together in one package, whereas no net neutrality would be something closer to ala carte.
I'd worry more about censorship from google and facebook to be honest. The bigger a company gets the more they lawyer up and do things to cover their butts and remain politically correct. Finding alternatives to these giants becomes the issue. Frankly as long as you cover your paper trail with a VPN, your ISP doesn't care much what you do as long as you stay under your bandwidth cap.
In theory no net neutrality could be a way to cheapen up internet access for people who don't use a lot of bandwidth by making big services like netflix pay instead of charging the end users. In practice, it probably won't work that way, and netflix will raise prices to compensate.
A lot of ISPs in 2017 jacked up the price of their cheapest service. Mediacom did and I'm still on a grandfathered plan and pay $40/month. The lowest plans are now I believe $60 or $70. I doubt they would lower prices if they got google, facebook, and netflix to throw in extra in subscription fees to "grant access" to these sites.
This all wouldn't be that big a deal if the cable providers didn't monopolize service in so many towns around the US. We happen to have 2 different cable providers in my town but the other one is equally expensive.
Excellent.
Double down on the monopoly part. In most areas the cable company and/or phone company are a monopoly or a dualopoly (that do not bother to compete on price) Note that the cable companies will buy off state legislatures to protect their monopolies.
It is not the same thing. An ISP can truly block things, making it impossible for me to see them. Facebook, Google, and YouTube cannot. If I don't like their policy on content, all I have to do is go to a different social media site or download a different browser. People who believe that Facebook really has the ability to stop them from seeing content they are determined to see are crediting it with a lot more power than it actually has. To tell the truth, I am still amazed that so many people use Facebook as their primary source of news in the first place. Talk about being spoon-fed...
It's actually pretty much the same. If you want to post a vid, where are you going to post it to get traffic? YouTube or Wistia?
All he's saying is that if you're pushing for NN then you're still at the mercy of the big content disseminators (Google, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook) who don't provide content, but only disseminate it.
Look think about it. You don't want to be charged extra for watching Hulu or Netflix, because it's been put into a higher rate package or behind a paywall. However would you want to see Infowars , or Anita Sarkeesian on YouTube, and why should YT determine whether you should see it anyway? Suppose all cat meme's were dropped behind a paywall too, only $2 per month and you too can see Grumpy Cat (who is probably dead by now).
It doesn't matter where the block is, on the last leg if your ISP, or hidden in the bowels of Google BigTable, a block is a block.
If you support legislative NN, then I don't understand how you can't support legislative regulation of the corps transmitting other peoples content, because we're not discussing the content originators, but solely the corporations deciding what you can and cannot see, and why should they decide, and be responsible for that task? Sure filter Porn and illegal content, but that's small potatoes, compared to filtering say hate speech against East Asians when the US has no hate speech laws to refer to (and probably never will). Or misandric statements by extreme feminists, or whatever, why not only permit but demand censorship by your major distributors like GOOG, FBK, YT, TWT, etc.
It's actually pretty much the same. If you want to post a vid, where are you going to post it to get traffic? YouTube or Wistia?
All he's saying is that if you're pushing for NN then you're still at the mercy of the big content disseminators (Google, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook) who don't provide content, but only disseminate it.
Look think about it. You don't want to be charged extra for watching Hulu or Netflix, because it's been put into a higher rate package or behind a paywall. However would you want to see Infowars , or Anita Sarkeesian on YouTube, and why should YT determine whether you should see it anyway? Suppose all cat meme's were dropped behind a paywall too, only $2 per month and you too can see Grumpy Cat (who is probably dead by now).
It doesn't matter where the block is, on the last leg if your ISP, or hidden in the bowels of Google BigTable, a block is a block.
If you support legislative NN, then I don't understand how you can't support legislative regulation of the corps transmitting other peoples content, because we're not discussing the content originators, but solely the corporations deciding what you can and cannot see, and why should they decide, and be responsible for that task? Sure filter Porn and illegal content, but that's small potatoes, compared to filtering say hate speech against East Asians when the US has no hate speech laws to refer to (and probably never will). Or misandric statements by extreme feminists, or whatever, why not only permit but demand censorship by your major distributors like GOOG, FBK, YT, TWT, etc.
For starters, I do not appreciate the implication that the fact I disagree means I have not thought about it.
I am going to offer an analogy for your consideration. Let's say you own a bookstore. Does someone else have the right to tell you what books you must offer for sale, or is that your decision? If you were told you had to sell every book currently in print, wouldn't you consider that a violation of your rights? For that matter, let's take it a step further and say you own a publishing company. Do you have to print every manuscript that comes your way?
I realize that this is a question that bears a lot more discussion, but right now, I stand by my current beliefs: ISPs should be treated as utilities. Actual websites should be treated as retailers. And yes, I know that is a gross over-simplification, but it does kind of sum up what I see as the difference between the two.
For starters, I do not appreciate the implication that the fact I disagree means I have not thought about it.
I am going to offer an analogy for your consideration. Let's say you own a bookstore. Does someone else have the right to tell you what books you must offer for sale, or is that your decision? If you were told you had to sell every book currently in print, wouldn't you consider that a violation of your rights? For that matter, let's take it a step further and say you own a publishing company. Do you have to print every manuscript that comes your way?
I realize that this is a question that bears a lot more discussion, but right now, I stand by my current beliefs: ISPs should be treated as utilities. Actual websites should be treated as retailers. And yes, I know that is a gross over-simplification, but it does kind of sum up what I see as the difference between the two.
Except they're not book sellers and the analogy fails because all are just conduits between content producers and consumers. A better analogy would be a national TV channel, while say NBC may have NBC productions they also are a channel between other producers and you like Bad Robot, or Mutant Enemy (but with far more limited bandwidth thus you get one timeline of programming).
Look you can totally have your opinion. I'm just bemused that you're all for ISPS not regulating the content you receive (NN). But you're fine with major Web services regulating the content you receive and you see a distinction. Whatever floats you boat I suppose.
Except they're not book sellers and the analogy fails because all are just conduits between content producers and consumers. A better analogy would be a national TV channel, while say NBC may have NBC productions they also are a channel between other producers and you like Bad Robot, or Mutant Enemy (but with far more limited bandwidth thus you get one timeline of programming).
Look you can totally have your opinion. I'm just bemused that you're all for ISPS not regulating the content you receive (NN). But you're fine with major Web services regulating the content you receive and you see a distinction. Whatever floats you boat I suppose.
If you think that content hosting companies should not be allowed to control the content they are hosting, you are telling them that they are required by force of law to maintain files on server hardware they physically own and are never allowed to delete those files or they will be legally punished. You at that point are legally forcing a company to devote space on their own privately owned hardware to hosting said files. Where does that stop, if a hard drive fails are they going to be in legal trouble? Perhaps in that case we should FORCE them to also mirror those files on additional hardware.
Yea, no - that is not the same at all, if you think it is then you are the one that does not understand the situation.
They OWN the hardware that is storing the users media, they PROVIDE a service to host that media, no one is FORCED to use that service, and they are not FORCED to provide the service if they do not wish to do so.
Q: How can you tell a company they are not allowed to delete files off of a hard drive that they OWN?
A: You can't, not if you say you believe in private property ownership that is
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 02-28-2018 at 09:25 AM..
"Network providers have business incentives to make their media products more desirable than their competitors, like Netflix or YouTube," David Choffnes, an assistant professor in Northeastern's College of Computer and Information Science, said in an university publication earlier this year. "One way to do that is to slow down or block Netflix or YouTube, making them effectively unwatchable."
Could affect access to City-Data too, if your provider has a competitive product.
Just for everyone's information, this was never about rolling back "Net neutrality". That was just the Democrat's P.R. campaign to justify their continued defense of the regulatory power grab by Obama and his FCC in 2015.
In fact, the Republicans are also in favor of "Net Neutrality". They just want to do it under a Title I regulatory framework, rather than under a Title II common carrier regulations, which were passed in 1934 to regulate the AT&T landline telephone monopoly, with technology that included operators manually operating the telephones and when "party lines" (You share your family telephone with other families) were common.
There are several benefits of applying Title I rather than Title II regulations.
The Title II common carrier regulations are for a scenario that is long obsolete and that substantially over-regulates broadband companies (AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, and also the wireless companies), while substantially under-regulating other internet related companies such as the social media companies (Facebook, Twitter, Google).
Title I regulations - which were in place from 1996 - 2015, when the internet positively thrived, has the FTC regulating privacy concerns and consumer business practices, which is their purpose for existing, instead of the FCC, which is not set up to do any of this.
Title I regulation will allow and require not only the regulation of the broadband companies, but also the regulation of the social media companies as well. And we all know how much they need to be regulated these days, with their role in enabling the Russians to interfere in our elections and all.
Expect legislation to be presented in Congress shortly to deal with this and one of the main points of interest will be that Republicans will be promoting their support for the permanent legalization of "Net neutrality," under the current Title I regulatory structure.
Last edited by Spartacus713; 02-28-2018 at 09:54 AM..
If you think that content hosting companies should not be allowed to control the content they are hosting, you are telling them that they are required by force of law to maintain files on server hardware they physically own and are never allowed to delete those files or they will be legally punished. You at that point are legally forcing a company to devote space on their own privately owned hardware to hosting said files. Where does that stop, if a hard drive fails are they going to be in legal trouble? Perhaps in that case we should FORCE them to also mirror those files on additional hardware.
Yea, no - that is not the same at all, if you think it is then you are the one that does not understand the situation.
They OWN the hardware that is storing the users media, they PROVIDE a service to host that media, no one is FORCED to use that service, and they are not FORCED to provide the service if they do not wish to do so.
How can you tell a company they are not allowed to delete files off of a hard drive that they OWN?
Except in many cases the companies we're discussing (couple of exceptions) aren't hosting the content. Google hosts links and ads, that's what you're seeing in Web results. Facebook hosts really only comments, and some images, if someone is violating their ToS, then remove the content, that's legit (and accountability is there if either side violates ToS, content deleted that isn't a violation of ToS can result in the company being held accountable, and content that does violate the ToS can be deleted), but, that's not what's happening. Further it's all clear and above board, a ToS that says "no politics" can delete political posts, all political posts, if that company only deletes left wing political posts it's failing to live up to its ToS unless the ToS says "No left wing politics".
What is done is de-rating content that may be of interest, but has been determined to be 'low value'. Who gets to decide that? It's not you, it might have been me once upon a time. It's not open and understandable, and you don't know exactly what is or is not being de-rated because you're not finding that content, even though you may be incredibly interested in it.
Look take Infowars, it's comedy gold much of the time, but, it does not violate YouTube's stated ToS, so why is it not at parity with much of the other content like Anita Sarkeesian for example, similar comedy gold. Who us accountable for that? Is it acceptable?
The issue is the 'internet' is one huge many to many relationship graph, but much is directed through only a few primary services. A utility isn't just something that physically connects you to something else, like power, water, etc. It's also services that connect you to what you wish to be connected to, like banks connects you to your government scrip, there's little physical connection between a bank and you, but it's a utility in the same sense as power, water, etc. Who like Internet companies never originally intended to be "utilities" it was only after they reached a certain critical mass, that "society" determined they were utilities and therefore need regulations.
There's an alternative, people say "well if you don't like X choose Y" which is great, but equally applies to ISPS as information disseminators on the internet.
It's just logically inconsistent to demand that ISPS support your online activities without prejudice, but we don't expect content aggregators and disseminators to be held to the same standards.
better question- why do people who don't understand the actual concept of new neutrality feel as though they need to expound at length to simply demonstrate said lack of grasp of the matter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
