This net neutrality move seems a good thing.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

One tell is found in the wording. Like you said, they always hide their true intent behind the terminology. Like 'humanitarian intervention' really means invasion and aggressive war, right?

Look at the the word 'neutrality.' Most people read that as a headline and are clueless.

But if you look around at the world we see the division of 'classes' based on the fees you can afford. You want a first class airline ticket or coach? You want ground mail or express, you want balcony seating, a hotel suite, holiday rates?

All around us is a form of tiered packaging, sold to us a gentle euphemistic marketing speak with dollar signs attached.

Now look at the internet, they wring their hands with glee at the prospects of carving that up into slow and fast lane, more or less access and participation.

But you are just supposed to wonder about some nebulous term called "Neutrality". Those free roaming wide ranging days are gone now... but slowly , oh so slowly they will raise rates, increase ads, deny access, censor content.

a reply to: nwtrucker
Exactly !!!! It's just so much better to have the federal government, UN and international agencies control the Internet!
In fact it was DARPA which first developed the Internet to begin with. Obama is a traitor of the worst kind.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Under Title II the federal government did not control the internet.

a reply to: nwtrucker

No.

The argument is not wether the big corporations are going to come after us, or the internet hogs. The argument is Who has more money? The people or the companies?

Essentially the way I understand it is under these circumstances.

In order to fully understand what it takes to make "internet" happen we must understand what needs to be built. We need to make sure that what ever is built can withstand expansion. We must also make sure that it is secure. The speed we have is not important, at least for the majority of the misinformed, or non internet savy consumers. We must also account for the power, the lines, and maintenance.

I spoke with several people who build, maintain, and service "internet connections." Or what ever other term that means providing an internet service. And the biggest complaint, from the team members on the "front lines" is when ever they buy out a service provider "hub." Or what ever they want to call those unmarked buildings out in the middle of no where. Essentially they purchase these hubs and discover that the method the prior owner was using to provide internet services were either not up to date, or were "barely holding everything together." Which prompted these companies to spend more to get everything running with their current services. Incorrect usage of computer components and server setups. Not enough power supplied. Incorrect and incompatible devices being strung together in software with different machine codes running in the background to keep things "stable." So they pretty much bought a bunch of lemons and had to turn them into proper hubs or substations. Which costs money. And above all costs us in tax money because of the losses they had suffered from buying into certain areas across the US. This was not always the case.

On the other side you have the consumers in those affected areas who want to stream movies, gameplay, and generally using a lot of bandwidth at the same time. Which if you have ever been through an internet outage it was probably because something at the hub went "down" or shorted out the entire server cluster.

Then you have to take into account that the competition is not really moving anywhere fast enough.

Comcast, at&t know they do not want to hurt their consumers at the base level. Doing so would shake the foundation too much. So you can expect your prices to Netflix and PlayStation network or Xbox live to rise, but you will not be charged by your ups for this. As instead the companies will simply raise your price for use. Remember what Netflix did about 2 years ago when it decided to start charging 9 dollars a month? Well if you do the math you will find out it will only raise another 2 dollars. (Number of customers, average bandwidth consumed per city or jurisdiction, average them out for all consumers.)

We won't see our services suddenly become pay to play. They already know that is what we can "expect" so making the move to charge the companies like psn Xbl Netflix Hulu twitch Amazon is the more ideal choice. They will not target us.

Then you must also recognize the userbase of Comcast vs qwest/century link at&t vs t mobile Verizon vs Sprint, time Warner vs any other ISP like roadrunner. The competition will equal itself out. If Comcast charges it's customers for entry they will quit Comcast and go to century link. At&t users will switch to t mobile. It is that simple.

So we will just have to play it by ear because the argument to axe the title 2 in our net neutrality is overwhelming. Especially considering that young people are not that interested in sitting in a chair all day checking code to ensure internet security.

Title 2 will be taken down. At least I now understand why net neutrality must be taken out. Especially considering how much money it costs with that many people every single day looking at a bunch of red blue green yellow and white lines on a screen coupled with about 20 computer screens, yet only 6 people there at any given time. Imagine what could be accomplished if every seat was filled.

a reply to: intrptr
ok but if your following me and Phage in that other thread, we are dissecting the actual text of both the Telecommunications act of 1996 and the Communication act of 1934 which 1996 amended. I quoted relevant parts that stated quite clearly that the discriminatory practices you and the MSM are speculating are prohibited in writing . That includes a passage where ISP are not classified under information services based on the actual words of the text.

In fact, after careful though about what we posted on page 3 of that thread, its clear that the information services will be the ones who actually stand to lose more, or the MSM who has been crying afoul of this repeal.

I think that is what we should look into, so maybe you should join us in there with dissecting those two pieces of Federal regulatory policy and find actual merit to these claims from the nearly 500 pages of text between the two. We could use a third set of eyes, noone else is really bothering to look in there with us. It may take us a bit for just the two of us scanning it for clues.

a reply to: GiulXainx

This actually make sense to me. As I read the posts of issues that had occurred pre 2015, it was always big company vs big company, not at the consumer level.

I still believe prices will rise but not like some of the fears. Thanks for that post.

a reply to: nwtrucker

You were not ASKING anything, you INVENTED a connection between the internet and the UN, and now you are playing innocent about even raising it in the first place. Its YOUR theory, so explain where you got it, so that we can put it to bed.

a reply to: nwtrucker

No. It did not give control of the internet to the UN. Where do you get your information? InfoWars?

There are two valid arguments against Net Neutrality. The first is that it removes the incentives for the private corporations that build and maintain the infrastructure to expand it. Why lay more cable when they can just charge everyone more for their services, reducing demand while maintaining income?

The second is the situation we currently have: the tragedy of the commons. If everyone has as much access to a resource as everyone else, people will abuse it. It ceases to have value and gets wasted. Just spend a few minutes browsing on YouTube or Instagram and you will see what I mean.

The first objection can be addressed by the government building and maintaining the infrastructure, analogous to running the Post Office. The problem with this is that it means there would be no need for Comcast or AT&T.

The objection to the second is that is the First Amendment is to blame, not Net Neutrality. Removing Net Neutrality will make it harder for smaller corporations and private citizens to be heard. Striking down Net Neutrality does not violate the letter of the First Amendment... just its spirit.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: nwtrucker

You were not ASKING anything, you INVENTED a connection between the internet and the UN, and now you are playing innocent about even raising it in the first place. Its YOUR theory, so explain where you got it, so that we can put it to bed.

Read the OP. then check the damn net on the subject before accusing me of inventing it. I didn't invent squat.

Your the one 'inventing'. If you've never heard about it, it's your issue not mine. Find your own links to it.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: nwtrucker

No. It did not give control of the internet to the UN. Where do you get your information? InfoWars?

There a number of links on the subject. Some deny the connection. It even went to court, apparently.

www.bbc.com...

a reply to: DJW001


Neither points seem valid to me. The first, is due to the fact there is no restriction that I know of in place that would stop them from doing that right now or any time in the past, for that matter. If that was their intent, it would have happened long ago.

The second? sorry. Might as well tell the NYT that thy can't charge so much for advertising as it violates the 'spirit' of the first amendment.

Looks to me the net neutrality fight is between the corporate players rather than the consumers.

Maybe Net Neutrality is keeping it from having minimum standards like a utility. For all we know the new minimum standard will be 500MB or 1GB downstream for 35.00 a month or some #.

How would this happen? Why would say, Comcast.. suddenly reduce their rates, when they could increase them as long as they add a disclaimer? If there is not something in place to do what you say above, there is absolutely no reason in the world any ISP would do this. The only way rates go down is with competition - and that is not reality.

Comcast is not a utility, and it's not bloody likely they will have a "change of heart" just to benefit the people. Why would they cut their profits by as much as 2/3rds? They wouldn't.

a reply to: nwtrucker

All I know is me and mine gain from it. If it leaves more money in the private sector more money will be generated into Federal reserves. always has.

Yeah, not sure you that will happen. it certainly won't happen for the majority of tax payers that are not business owners in the US and can't play with the deductions till the cows come home.

Another thought is Trump needs the stock market to continue to rise. That's his biggest PR point and the higher it goes the bigger the fear of a crash if tax reform doesn't go through. I'd assume the market responded well to this news

Trump is going to need a miracle if this net neutrality gets fully abused by the ISP by the time the next election gets here.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Neither points seem valid to me. The first, is due to the fact there is no restriction that I know of in place that would stop them from doing that right now or any time in the past, for that matter. If that was their intent, it would have happened long ago.

That first point has actually happened. At first the ISP's said they would build a network if the government gave them the money, so the government did. Then the ISP's violated the agreement, said such a network was impossible, and didn't build it... they just pocketed the billions they were given. The current fiber optic network that's used was paid for by the government, and then handed over to those same ISP's due to calls that the government shouldn't manage it.

Streaming content requires a massive expansion of network capacity because it involves constant data transfer compared to webpages which load in bursts and are effectively 99.99% downtime on any given connection. The ISP's don't want to put in the money for that, so they've been trying to discourage data use instead. Again, it all goes back to the push for TV. TV and radio don't require the expansion of a network, while data transfer does... so the telecom's want to encourage less data usage. This is also why upload speeds in the US on residential connections are so abysmal compared to the rest of the world, there's nothing special about uploads, the telecom's just don't want people to send data.

Here's an old article on it, as this happened a while ago... but this fight has been going on a long time, since well before 2015.

www.techdirt.com...

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: nwtrucker

No. It did not give control of the internet to the UN. Where do you get your information? InfoWars?

infowars is spreading BS... they are mixing Domain Name Control with Net Neutrality...

Alex Jones: I tried to study Net Neutrality, it's very complex...

1:20
Mark Dice: We know that Obama turned over the entire internet to the United Nations.
Alex Jones: Exactly



www.youtube.com...

Even more dangerous, no matter if it was good or bad, they discuss turning over everything that Obama did. Which is pretty careless and stupid.

a reply to: Aazadan

I must be missing something. The first point was driving up prices for the consumer, unless I misunderstand. At least that's what I got from it.

Basically it hasn't happened. At least no more than any other endeavor. Also. there was no particular barrier to the ISPs increasing prices and that again hasn't occurred to any degree so far.

The example you cite seems corporation vs corporation or Gvo't vs corporation, including your earlier list you posted. Not the consumer particularly.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: intrptr
Free roaming of the whole internet will be reorganized to tiered packages of access, the more you want to surf and participate, the more it will cost. The bottom tier, (Basic service package) will limit the user to channel surfing only, commercial ads, comments disabled, censorship to g or pg rated videos and content, just like on cable tv. You can change channels, scroll, mute the commercials and pay for a whole bunch of channels you will never watch.

Good thing huh?

Censorship, a 'good' thing...

lol and going over the top beyond rational must also be a "good" thing to you. the sky isnt falling. at best youll miss out on netflix, hulu or some other streaming service as they negotiate a deal with the isp just like u see with television companies like direct tv and comcast these days when some channel or another doesnt feel like paying the rate they are charging.

Hah, they always say that. I know, I watched the Cable TV get born, mature and die. The internet will too.

Control freaks will take over and censor just like they did TV and cable.

BTW, how many YouTubes you have bookmarked for future reference, but when you go to reference them it says, 'removed, sorry about that' ?

honestly i have none saved but thats just me and those videos being removed have absolutely zero to do with net neutrality and everything to do with youtubes policies.

Nothing to do with net neutrality and everything to do with YouTubes policies? Seems they're very interrelated.

It's individual corporate policy that's potentially worrisome, hence the concern about net neutrality...not that I know anything....

It's incredible how little people know of the internet.

YouTube is content generated and has terms and services.

Net neutrality is far, FAR bigger than that.

I don't use YouTube's servers or adhere to YouTube's terms when paying bills online. Or when sending/receiving packages.

The ignorance regarding net neutrality is palpable.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Aazadan

I must be missing something. The first point was driving up prices for the consumer, unless I misunderstand. At least that's what I got from it.

Basically it hasn't happened. At least no more than any other endeavor. Also. there was no particular barrier to the ISPs increasing prices and that again hasn't occurred to any degree so far.

The example you cite seems corporation vs corporation or Gvo't vs corporation, including your earlier list you posted. Not the consumer particularly.

That posters first point had to do with incentive for the ISP's to maintain and expand infrastructure. There is little to no reason for them to do so under the current system. Creating that incentive is difficult, because it's expensive. There's a couple competing lines of thought here:

One has to do with markets and competition, but the problem with that is that it's not really feasible to duplicate infrastructure and compete.

The other is that we mandate it like a utility as we've done with roads, electricity, and so on to bring service to all... the problem with that, is that data needs are growing over time, it's not a one time investment like other utilities, for example our water needs don't really grow beyond the number of homes connected. With data, average consumption is exponentially growing, websites are 100 times the file size they were in 2000 and that's not even counting streaming video. Water, electricity, and so on don't really have usage increases like that. Homes use the same or fewer gallons of water today that they used in 2000.

Net Neutrality, for or against doesn't address this issue other than the side effect of a lack of NN discouraging streaming video use.

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: intrptr
Free roaming of the whole internet will be reorganized to tiered packages of access, the more you want to surf and participate, the more it will cost. The bottom tier, (Basic service package) will limit the user to channel surfing only, commercial ads, comments disabled, censorship to g or pg rated videos and content, just like on cable tv. You can change channels, scroll, mute the commercials and pay for a whole bunch of channels you will never watch.

Good thing huh?

Censorship, a 'good' thing...

lol and going over the top beyond rational must also be a "good" thing to you. the sky isnt falling. at best youll miss out on netflix, hulu or some other streaming service as they negotiate a deal with the isp just like u see with television companies like direct tv and comcast these days when some channel or another doesnt feel like paying the rate they are charging.

Hah, they always say that. I know, I watched the Cable TV get born, mature and die. The internet will too.

Control freaks will take over and censor just like they did TV and cable.

BTW, how many YouTubes you have bookmarked for future reference, but when you go to reference them it says, 'removed, sorry about that' ?

honestly i have none saved but thats just me and those videos being removed have absolutely zero to do with net neutrality and everything to do with youtubes policies.

Nothing to do with net neutrality and everything to do with YouTubes policies? Seems they're very interrelated.

It's individual corporate policy that's potentially worrisome, hence the concern about net neutrality...not that I know anything....

It's incredible how little people know of the internet.

YouTube is content generated and has terms and services.

Net neutrality is far, FAR bigger than that.

I don't use YouTube's servers or adhere to YouTube's terms when paying bills online. Or when sending/receiving packages.

The ignorance regarding net neutrality is palpable.

Sorry, using YouTube was a mistake and only an example I was trying to make. Policy, then, ISP policy, new or about to be revised would be a concern regarding net neutrality. Yes? Better stated?

The ignorance, at least mine, is as long as my rates don't go sky high, the damn corporations can fight amongst themselves. Besides....ignorance is bliss....