It’s clear that you really don’t understand the issue then. The implications are far more reaching than this site. The corporate world took over our governments and now they are taking over the internet. Dig a little deeper if you want to understand what this means for all of us. One day people will wake up and realize that while they were sleeping their freedoms were stolen from them. But who cares, right? As long as we don’t notice it doesn’t mean anything.
No offense GHG, but until Obama brought in the regulations in 2015 NOTHING was in place; and the world didn’t end; and there wasn’t an issue. The competitive corporate nature is what made net neutrality defacto in the first place.
Don’t get me wrong - I’m not for the changes that have occurred - but all they really mean when you get into it is that the internet has returned to the regulatory state it existed in from 2001 to 2015 (within the United States). BFD.
Actually in 2010 the FCC issued the Open Internet Order and yes there were issues with it but everybody played by those rules. Only when it was challenged in court were the regulations put in place to classify broadband as a utility in 2015.
The 2015 argument is actually what a lot of Net Neutrality deniers use in their arguments but truth is that it started in 2010.
Net Neutrality wasn’t needed in the 90s because there as competition for internet access, broadband wasn’t really a thing yet. But as dialup died and broadband came to more homes and mobile phones, the natural monopolies formed. Infrastructure is expensive and it is basically impossible to create a nationwide competitor to the current big players. In many ways (like our 3-tiered alcohol system) Net Neutrality is an anti-trust regulation.
2010 or not; Most internet uses had broadband from 2001+. Still 10 years of never a problem.
Sucks that the rules have been changed - but nothing to sweat about I don’t think. Just imagine the villains that broadband “monopolies” would be played out as in the media and the public, the moment they started pushing more cash for access schemes/blocking etc. Great way to end a large business.
We’re going to see changes on mobile carries first and relatively immediately. The want to sink in their fangs ASAP so that when it goes to court or Congress, they’ll cry about how expensive it will be to roll back all these changes.
The first change on mobile will be to shut down VPN access in order to sell you a business package. The next change will be what we’re seeing in Portugal, lower tiers of internet access that doesn’t give you the entire internet.
You’ll see this after the New Year within 2-3 months.
New here, but I thought I read somewhere that political posts like this weren’t allowed on A&A forums. Not trying to be a jerk, but there’s really no good reason for this to be here.
It’s not really political in a way. Has to do with changes that may happen to Internet in a few years.
Big D the site creator will chime in to let u know.
New here, but I thought I read somewhere that political posts like this weren’t allowed on A&A forums. Not trying to be a jerk, but there’s really no good reason for this to be here.
You’re right it’s against the rules - if we expect us peasants to be treated equally with the king around here. :)
This is Djensens site and his thread. So No matter how hard you try we won’t win that argument :)
@SS:
It’s not really political in a way. Has to do with changes that may happen to Internet in a few years.
The title of this post is asking people to call their local Congressmen and ask them to halt the repeal of FCC regulations, sending us back to the internet dark ages of 2 years ago. That’s the definition of political, and then some.
This is Djensens site and his thread. So No matter how hard you try we won’t win that argument :)
I didn’t see this was posted by the owner of the site. Darn, I hate it when mod’s don’t read their own rules.
< grabs bag of popcorn and leans back in chair.
He has a very good point…calling a politician to voice concerns about an agenda is political.
Suggesting what to say is lobbying.
@SS:
It’s not really political in a way. Has to do with changes that may happen to Internet in a few years.
The title of this post is asking people to call their local Congressmen and ask them to halt the repeal of FCC regulations, sending us back to the internet dark ages of 2 years ago. That’s the definition of political, and then some.
This is Djensens site and his thread. So No matter how hard you try we won’t win that argument :)
I didn’t see this was posted by the owner of the site. Darn, I hate it when mod’s don’t read their own rules.
Ya like I said your right in away but he’s just letting you know what may happen to site. So then from now on He is not allowed to bring it up and when the cost goes up and or site disappears then you will not get any warning due to being political post.
Just lettin you know what may happen. Fine Bye.
The rule isn’t what’s important to remember and enforce. The spirit behind the rule is.
The reason political discussions were forbidden was because of the explosive forum wars they would cause over items that quite frankly couldn’t be resolved at A&A.org and almost never had anything to do with the site. We used to have a political/open subsection and every imaginable issue was discussed in extreme flame there. The battles would then seep into all of the other areas of the forum and cause chaos.
That is why such discussions were stopped; and similar to the reasons replicants were outlawed in 2017.
Then I request the Mods or creator to remove it .
The rule isn’t what’s important to remember and enforce. The spirit behind the rule is.
I agree, but then where does one draw the line on exceptions? Better to kiss
So, I learned today about a site that had it’s Domain name SEIZED recently; and it got me into reading more about Domain Name Seizures AKA the shutting down of a site for whatever reason.
Turns out this happens all the time, and was even an issue as far back as 2012 - check out this article for example
https://www.wired.com/2012/03/feds-seize-foreign-sites/
In other words,
Net Neutrality is fake news. because if you’re speaking out about extremely controversial issues, running a site the gov wants to tax, or simply have a site that someone else really wants, the domain name can just be taken from you and you can be shut down or blocked out.
I think that’s a far greater risk for A&A.org than net neutrality. Hopefully we never have to deal with it, but even if it happend, there would probably be no warning, and no way for the community to rally to respond.
So, I learned today about a site that had it’s Domain name SEIZED recently; and it got me into reading more about Domain Name Seizures AKA the shutting down of a site for whatever reason.
Turns out this happens all the time, and was even an issue as far back as 2012 - check out this article for example
https://www.wired.com/2012/03/feds-seize-foreign-sites/In other words,
Net Neutrality is fake news. because if you’re speaking out about extremely controversial issues, running a site the gov wants to tax, or simply have a site that someone else really wants, the domain name can just be taken from you and you can be shut down or blocked out.
I think that’s a far greater risk for A&A.org than net neutrality. Hopefully we never have to deal with it, but even if it happend, there would probably be no warning, and no way for the community to rally to respond.
What the hell does any of this have to do with net neutrality? That’s like saying it’s not an issue because they upped the price of Girl Guide cookies and that hits us all closer to home. Did Verizon put you up to this? :roll:
Net neutralitiy is the idea that all internet traffic should be treated equally, and all websites equally accessible to the public. No pay for premium models, or blocked content.
It’s a great idea.
But the truth is it’s a friggin lie, even when net neutrality law was in place domains could just be seized arbitrarily to stop those trying to speak freely etc. Traffic was shut down and blocked etc. The law did nothing to protect the public.
What I’m saying is that all the noise about net neutrality, is just that - noise.
{snip}
What I’m saying is that all the noise about net neutrality, is just that - noise.
It is a lot of noise, isn’t it? A whole lot of people are talking about it. But you don’t think it will affect you. So you don’t see the point.
There is a difference between a nation state seizing a web site and a corporation slow rolling you every time you try to visit a website. But the difference is moot if you can’t get to it either way. I suspect that the government is not going to shut down myISPsucks.net. But a world where ISPs can decide for themselves how much bandwidth different websites get, is a world where ISPs can keep their customers from viewing such a website.
In an example much more closer to home, a world where ISPs can decide for themselves how much bandwidth different websites get, is a world where ISPs can accept money from large corporations to shut down small sites that they don’t agree with. In such a world, if Hasbro were to be irritated at A&A.org for not always fawning over every decision made by Hasbro then Hasbro could pay ISPs to throttle down A&A.org’s bandwidth. If it took a minute for any page here to load, a lot of people would quit coming here. And in that way, Hasbro could keep their customers from viewing such a website.
You might say: “That could never happen, A&A.org is way too small for Hasbro to care about.” To which I say, I’d rather have a world where ISPs don’t have this power in the first place.
You might say: “But there’s nothing stopping ISPs from doing this before.” Before, you could sue your ISP for blocking access to your traffic. Now, all you can do is launch a campaign on the internet about what a crappy job your ISP is doing. You know, the type of website they don’t give easy access to anymore.
-Midnight_Reaper
And what’s to stop your ISP from throttling back websites (including news services) that don’t agree with its political bent, giving you easy access to only those that do? Ultimately, net neutrality is an issue of freedom of speech, not simply one of commerce.
{snip}
What I’m saying is that all the noise about net neutrality, is just that - noise.It is a lot of noise, isn’t it? A whole lot of people are talking about it. But you don’t think it will affect you. So you don’t see the point.
There is a difference between a nation state seizing a web site and a corporation slow rolling you every time you try to visit a website. But the difference is moot if you can’t get to it either way. I suspect that the government is not going to shut down myISPsucks.net. But a world where ISPs can decide for themselves how much bandwidth different websites get, is a world where ISPs can keep their customers from viewing such a website.
In an example much more closer to home, a world where ISPs can decide for themselves how much bandwidth different websites get, is a world where ISPs can accept money from large corporations to shut down small sites that they don’t agree with. In such a world, if Hasbro were to be irritated at A&A.org for not always fawning over every decision made by Hasbro then Hasbro could pay ISPs to throttle down A&A.org’s bandwidth. If it took a minute for any page here to load, a lot of people would quit coming here. And in that way, Hasbro could keep their customers from viewing such a website.
You might say: “That could never happen, A&A.org is way too small for Hasbro to care about.” To which I say, I’d rather have a world where ISPs don’t have this power in the first place.
You might say: “But there’s nothing stopping ISPs from doing this before.” Before, you could sue your ISP for blocking access to your traffic. Now, all you can do is launch a campaign on the internet about what a crappy job your ISP is doing. You know, the type of website they don’t give easy access to anymore.
-Midnight_Reaper
If an ISP were to agree to a proposition from Hasbro like that, then they would be required (by law) to publicly disclose that information, creating public backlash that would undoubtedly result in more consumer money shifting to their competitors than Hasbro could ever possibly hope to compete with. As to them blocking a negative ad campaign, that would require basically shutting down every news/forum site on the internet, which for any ISP interested in staying in business is unlikely.
And what’s to stop your ISP from throttling back websites (including news services) that don’t agree with its political bent, giving you easy access to only those that do? Ultimately, net neutrality is an issue of freedom of speech, not simply one of commerce.
Funny you should mention free speech. As a matter of fact, there is a large Free Speech battle on the internet going on right now. Only it’s not from the “Anti-Net Neutrality” crowd, it’s from corporations like Google (especially YouTube), Twitter and Facebook, all heavily in favor of Net Neutrality, and all of which censor conservative content on their sites. For example, YouTube blocks channels like PragerU (Educational, conservative content) from being accessed in school by placing them in restricted mode.
And to be perfectly honest, there should be nothing illegal about companies screening content however they want (your platform, your rules. Free Speech doesn’t apply). As long as they are legally obligated to be upfront about it, it’s up to consumers as to how they feel about it.
