FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see and use

a reply to: dawnstar

will not work . you open your internet and share it with other your a liable for the traffic (ie pizzagate). plus they can monitor and detect unusual traffic patterns and shot down the node.

there is no way around this. even if you create your own network with quantum encryption they have or will creat regulations to hold you accountable.

a reply to: dug88

Do you think anyone will develop a tracker to reveal what the upstream providers throttle back and block? Caveat, it seems, is that the upstream providers will collectively block anything that reveals their dirty work.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

ok, so consider this then: your current ISP decides there is nothing to gain from allowing their customers to see ATS, 4chan and other alternative websites, In fact, given the fact that these sites generates traffic is a cost per byte to the ISP, so it is not carried as a potential ....eh..."books by a certain publisher". As you can see, it is quite easy to terminate access to a site not on par with political correct thought.

What are you going to do?

ISP's are basically nothing more than the car rental dudes. But now, the car rental dudes want to tell you where, when and how you can travel. O, and the installed camera in the car is catching all you are doing and saying in order to provide you with targeted adverts and better understand how you interact with the car.

Have fun!

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I doubt either side of this debate has the Average Americans best interest at heart.

If you are going to do net neutrality, make it like natural gas where every ISP can use the same physical sets of pipelines. Especially as this backbone was subsidised with taxpayer dollars.
That way startups can compete with the one or two internet providers more than 90% of Americans have to choose from. There isn't enough competition and the cost of setting up a competing system is the barrier to entry for new competitors.

Every American would benefit if we had 5 to 10 options of ISP companies to choose from.

a reply to: CriticalStinker


The media giants will have no problem buying high speed distribution. Alternative news sources will go back to dial up speeds. ATS may need to put up pay firewall in addition to ads.

a reply to: dawnstar

Indeed.

It certainly forces upon those suffering from lack of access to rethink methods and means. Perhaps, there is even a business model in there ....hmmmm...

But I would remiss if I were to withhold you the following link:
Serval Mesh

No. You can't use those things you still have to go through your ISP which will be able to block access to VPN's

I'm assuming you and others are talking about blocking access to known VPN sites via IP or subnet. You can't block VPN itself - there are far too many businesses that rely on it. Then it will become shuffle the VPN client to stay connected. Will TOR become mainstream if this comes to pass? Will your ISP then try to block TOR usage? Will privacy outcries ensue? Gee, should be exciting.

originally posted by: fleabit

No. You can't use those things you still have to go through your ISP which will be able to block access to VPN's

I'm assuming you and others are talking about blocking access to known VPN sites via IP or subnet. You can't block VPN itself - there are far too many businesses that rely on it. Then it will become shuffle the VPN client to stay connected. Will TOR become mainstream if this comes to pass? Will your ISP then try to block TOR usage? Will privacy outcries ensue? Gee, should be exciting.

You can block VPN's and then charge companies or individuals an additional fee to ok their specific VPN on their local ISP.

originally posted by: pavil
I doubt either side of this debate has the Average Americans best interest at heart.

If you are going to do net neutrality, make it like natural gas where every ISP can use the same physical sets of pipelines. Especially as this backbone was subsidised with taxpayer dollars.
That way startups can compete with the one or two internet providers more than 90% of Americans have to choose from. There isn't enough competition and the cost of setting up a competing system is the barrier to entry for new competitors.

Every American would benefit if we had 5 to 10 options of ISP companies to choose from.

It's becoming more and more clear that a major issue in the 2020 election is going to be breaking up the telecom companies. We did it 40 years ago, we can do it now.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: pavil
I doubt either side of this debate has the Average Americans best interest at heart.

If you are going to do net neutrality, make it like natural gas where every ISP can use the same physical sets of pipelines. Especially as this backbone was subsidised with taxpayer dollars.
That way startups can compete with the one or two internet providers more than 90% of Americans have to choose from. There isn't enough competition and the cost of setting up a competing system is the barrier to entry for new competitors.

Every American would benefit if we had 5 to 10 options of ISP companies to choose from.

It's becoming more and more clear that a major issue in the 2020 election is going to be breaking up the telecom companies. We did it 40 years ago, we can do it now.

Another question to ask is why America, with only 1 or 2 ISP options for most citizens is 47th in Internet speed, especially with the prices we pay for that substandard speed. Competition would get us faster speeds at reduced prices.

originally posted by: pavil
Another question to ask is why America, with only 1 or 2 ISP options for most citizens is 47th in Internet speed, especially with the prices we pay for that substandard speed. Competition would get us faster speeds at reduced prices.

That has nothing to do with Net Neutrality or competition. Solving that issue is another problem. Lets say we broke up the companies, and one company owned the physical lines while another company handled putting the data over them. We can have competition on the second company, the ISP's.

Having a faster network comes down to the first issue though. It's too expensive to physically run lines and create competing infrastructure.

Every country that has fast internet has nationalized their lines, and they expand service at a tax payer subsidized loss, and make up for it in the extra commerce it brings businesses. It's the same concept as roads or water lines. They don't generate value on their own, but they create additional revenue that makes them cost neutral.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Well, the FCC plans to get rid of net neutrality soon. This could give more power to already monopoly structured internet providers.

I'm pretty sure this is called 'bait and switch' - which is illegal. And even if not, you can just stop using the internet as a protest.

originally posted by: CryHavoc

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Well, the FCC plans to get rid of net neutrality soon. This could give more power to already monopoly structured internet providers.

I'm pretty sure this is called 'bait and switch' - which is illegal. And even if not, you can just stop using the internet as a protest.

Not really. I have to have the internet for work and school. Without internet service I cannot get or submit any assignments for class. I also cannot send or receive any work that I do for my job.

originally posted by: Adonsa
a reply to: dug88

Do you think anyone will develop a tracker to reveal what the upstream providers throttle back and block? Caveat, it seems, is that the upstream providers will collectively block anything that reveals their dirty work.

I think they could. But the only way I can think of is to monitor the traffic of people using different providers and compare the speeds they get at different sites to other users on different providers. Even then it probably wouldn't give any true idea of what or much is being throttled or blocked. Also, I doubt you could do this without some kind of online tool or collaboration, which would probably end up blocked.

originally posted by: Adonsa
a reply to: dug88

Do you think anyone will develop a tracker to reveal what the upstream providers throttle back and block? Caveat, it seems, is that the upstream providers will collectively block anything that reveals their dirty work.

Supposedly, that's all going to be public information. But there's loopholes to avoid having to disclose anything. You'll be able to make trackers, but they're not going to do anyone any good.

You called your congressman? Very nice. I e-mailed mine and sent a message to the FCC.

I use the internet to Tutor online through a webcam interface. That could be affected for all I know. The website I use is small enough it could be shut down.

Of course, I use the internet for both gaming and Netflix. I’m thinking I’ll have to pay extra for that.

I can't believe the amount of people here who are actually against internet neutrality; I seriously thought this was a clear cut case of corporate greed and government corruption.

Don't you see what's at stake here?
This isn't about getting cheaper internet, it's about limiting access to the greatest source of knowledge in the history of the world!
If the internet doesn't remain neutral, it'll seriously stifle the technological, cultural and economic growth that this wonderful network has created all over the world!

And arguments like comparing a neutral internet to stores having to stock every item known to man and cable companies having to broadcast every channel freely is just ridiculous.
The stores actually have to pay for the stock they keep - the ISP's don't pay jack for all the websites you can access.

Same thing with cable, except the argument is even less valid in this case, as the companies have to pay for the channels, as well as the costs of continually tranmitting every channel everywhere. Yes, they actually transmit everything, everywhere, all the time - the only difference between the large package and the small one is whether or not they install a frequency limiter on your line at the nearest distribution box. That's another difference between cable and internet - the ISPs don't have to "broadcast" anything; the only time there's any traffic on your connection is when you or your devices request it.

Then there's the arguments like: "If you don't like it, just choose someone else!", which is moot as they'd just have their own list of approved websites and package-deals.
Which brings me to: "Just use satelite", which is even sillier than asking people to just switch to another provider, as they'd have their own packages as well, plus the inevetably high prices that comes with tasking a satelites handle the two-way communication of a huge amount of people. Once again, the internet is an entirely different beast from cable or satelite-tv; sat-tv only has to broadcast the spectrum of channels it's been tasked with, covering as much ground as possible, whereas internet is a two-way system in which the satelite would have to receive and direct unique content at every. single. user.

So sure, if you don't mind stunting the development of the entire race, go ahead and support them getting rid of internet neutrality - you'll even get to save a few yearly trips to Mickey Dee's worth in taxes!

So, again, NN has only been around for less than 1000 days.

The other ~8600 days since 1991 (modern Internet) the ISP's were acting altruistically but now without NN they will turn on their customers?

I'm not buying it.



I liken this to Ron Paul's comments regarding heroine where he makes a joke that if not for the law he'd run and go do heroine right away.


How amazing some you are just clinging to government intrusion!

Well maybe with too little regulation they'll make it so basic unlimited unrestrained access is only given to those people who'll pay hundreds of dollars per month? I mean, some of the consumers have lots of money. They're whales--about 10% of the population. They could pay a large sum of the needs of the company. Why don't the ISP's invent reasons to block services unless you're rich? This allows them to "milk" the richest customers.

Typically competition disallows this from happening. If one company is charging too much and not providing quality service, it gets killed by a competitor. So the company that milks its whales and screws the rest won't last long because 90% of its customers will switch to a competitor. But what if there's no competitor? Or what if all the competitors are doing the same thing with only minor adjustments? What if the price of unrestricted access is genuinely expensive?

We have to be aware companies can be like individuals. They can be economic criminals. They can abuse, thieve, sabotage and other. Choice counters this--like in a free market. So do government regulations.

originally posted by: Tempter
So, again, NN has only been around for less than 1000 days.

The other ~8600 days since 1991 (modern Internet) the ISP's were acting altruistically but now without NN they will turn on their customers?

I'm not buying it.



I liken this to Ron Paul's comments regarding heroine where he makes a joke that if not for the law he'd run and go do heroine right away.


How amazing some you are just clinging to government intrusion!

haha

You are going to go with that?

Do you work for Verizon or AT&T?