Punching Bag Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 http://fortune.com/2017/11/21/net-neutrality-fcc-winners-losers/ Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai on Tuesday unveiled his plan to erase the agency’s 2015 ban on Internet service providers discriminating against certain online content and services while favoring others. Pai’s plan also blocks state and local governments from imposing their own net neutrality rules. Not really want companies like Verizon to have advantage considering how they have treated me in past. I am not affected as much as others who use wireless services using data caps and slow downs but have seen Verizon slow down services and then send out literature on how to speed up service after agreeing to pay premium rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 To PPP in 3.....2......1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 I may just page back to the previous threads and cut & paste what I said back then. Keep government out of the net. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 Maybe Darren would be willing to merge the threads. This sub-forum, by and large, is much better about limiting redundant threads than the main board. It would be nice if we could keep it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Maybe Darren would be willing to merge the threads. This sub-forum, by and large, is much better about limiting redundant threads than the main board. It would be nice if we could keep it that way. That would be great - I sure would appreciate it if he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 What will poor ol' Googles and Facebooks do without the protection of Net Neutrality? They need protection, man. They need it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 I used to be for net neutrality but think it is a terrible idea now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 Just now, Boyst62 said: I used to be for net neutrality but think it is a terrible idea now. Why? Because you now understand that net neutrality is a myth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 10 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Maybe Darren would be willing to merge the threads. This sub-forum, by and large, is much better about limiting redundant threads than the main board. It would be nice if we could keep it that way. Where's the other thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 13 minutes ago, GG said: Why? Because you now understand that net neutrality is a myth? At the introduction of it and early days of pioneering the internet long before it became a tagline and talking point it had a purpose similar to unions. Unions were 100+ years ago. Which in technology terms - was 100 years ago. The myth of net neutrality protects the big fish more then it does help the little fish. What was first presented by everyone on it didn't add up or make sense. And since about 2011 I have been ok the fence to falling toward against it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 16 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: At the introduction of it and early days of pioneering the internet long before it became a tagline and talking point it had a purpose similar to unions. Unions were 100+ years ago. Which in technology terms - was 100 years ago. The myth of net neutrality protects the big fish more then it does help the little fish. What was first presented by everyone on it didn't add up or make sense. And since about 2011 I have been ok the fence to falling toward against it "Net Neutrality" was never about the little guy. It was about Google & Netflix desire to avoid transit fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 1 hour ago, GG said: What will poor ol' Googles and Facebooks do without the protection of Net Neutrality? They need protection, man. They need it! Speaking of Facebook https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-advertising-discrimination-housing-race-sex-national-origin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 You can usually get a good sense of what a Bill's true intent is by its name. Whatever the title of the bill is usually means the opposite: The Patriot Act = not at all patriotic. Affordable Care Act = not at all affordable Net Neutrality = not really neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 MEGAN MCARDLE: The Internet Had Already Lost Its Neutrality: Even while the FCC was more strictly regulating, a few powerful companies took control of what we see and don’t. The internet will be filled today with denunciations of this move, threats of a dark future in which our access to content will be controlled by a few powerful companies. And sure, that may happen. But in fact, it may already have happened, led not by ISPs, but by the very companies that were fighting so hard for net neutrality. Consider what happened to the Daily Stormer, the neo-Nazi publication, after Charlottesville. One by one, hosting companies refused to permit its content on their servers. The group was forced to effectively flee the country, and then other countries, too, shut it down. Now of course, these are not nice people. Their website espoused vile hate. But the fact remains that what they were publishing was not illegal, merely immoral, and their immoral speech was effectively shut down by a small number of private companies who decided to exercise their considerable control over what we’re allowed to read. And what is to stop them from expanding this decision to other categories, forcing the rest of us to conform to Silicon Valley’s idea of what it is moral and right for us to see? Fifteen years ago, when I started blogging, it was common to hear that “the internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.” You don’t hear that so often anymore, because it’s not true. China has proven very effective at censoring the internet, and as market power has consolidated in the tech industry, so have private firms. Meanwhile, our experience of the internet is increasingly controlled by a handful of firms, most especially Google and Facebook. The argument for regulating these companies as public utilities is arguably at least as strong as the argument for thus regulating ISPs, and very possibly much stronger; while cable monopolies may have local dominance, none of them has the ability that Google and Facebook have to unilaterally shape what Americans see, hear, and read. In other words, we already live in the walled garden that activists worry about, and the walls are getting higher every day. Is this a problem? I think it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 14 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Affordable Care Act = not at all affordable That's my favorite. Not affordable, AND doesn't provide any care. But it's an act...I guess... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 18 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: You can usually get a good sense of what a Bill's true intent is by its name. Whatever the title of the bill is usually means the opposite: The Patriot Act = not at all patriotic. Affordable Care Act = not at all affordable Net Neutrality = not really neutral. So what you are saying is our trusted and respected leaders are not always truthful with their agendas? Stop trying to undermine our democratic institutions and principles 4 minutes ago, DC Tom said: That's my favorite. Not affordable, AND doesn't provide any care. But it's an act...I guess... Yeah it's definitely an act 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 NARAL takes the prize for most ‘INSANE’ defense of Net Neutrality Quote ✔@NARAL Repealing #NetNeutrality is a direct threat to reproductive freedom. Without it, our access to information about how to obtain an abortion or other #reprohealth services could be compromised. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7x9e59/losing-net-neutrality-could-cripple-abortion-rights … 1:23 PM - Nov 21, 2017 Not everything is about killing babies guys................................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: You can usually get a good sense of what a Bill's true intent is by its name. Whatever the title of the bill is usually means the opposite: The Patriot Act = not at all patriotic. Affordable Care Act = not at all affordable Net Neutrality = not really neutral. Tax cut and jobs act = tax cut for the wealthy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, B-Man said: NARAL takes the prize for most ‘INSANE’ defense of Net Neutrality Not everything is about killing babies guys................................... Because no one ever had an abortion before the dial-up modem was invented. EDIT: I just read some of the twitter replies. People actually think repealing net neutrality means "President Trump gets to decide what is and isn't allowed on the internet." Holy ****, people are stupid. Edited November 22, 2017 by DC Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 Fees will rise services will drop intrusion will rise duh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts