Net Neutrality a warning for the future!

[Poryg]

@Tuomo L Comcast and Verizon. One of them released the throttle after they received the ransom, the other one didn't.
What a coincidence, Ajit comes from Verizon.

 

[Tuomo L]

@Tuomo L Comcast and Verizon. One of them released the throttle after they received the ransom, the other one didn't.
What a coincidence, Ajit comes from Verizon.

Oh, yeah, you're right. It's because the other one is offering their own Netflix like service and wants to stiffle the competition by making Netflix seem worse than their own ****ty service.

 

[Marquise*]

That smells like protection racket... kinda.

I know after the 14th it wont stop in a deadbeat, but... just in case and in advance; *Cybermental hugs everyone here!*

 

[gstv87]

there's always proxy sites and VPNs.
there have been, for years.

I don't know to what extent they'd be able to bypass whatever restrictions are put in place, but, .... AFAIK, those haven't been 100% ruled out.

 

[Sauteed_Onion]

One of the things I can kind of see is keeping people from learning anything in a fairly unmitigated way.

If someone decided to find out about Theodore Roosevelt for instance, you could gather WAAAY more information about Theodore Roosevelt going online and doing a fast search for Theodore Roosevelt than you could by going to a politically stilted college class that had a job of cramming a highly prioritized lesson of general American Political History.

Granted an 'accredited' college will probably help you progress in a professional way in the 'real world', but you will remain much less uninformed, and pay much more for that degree that sent you to a much more controlled environment and career path. In the Net Neutrality repeal, it gives more power to people that's livelihood revolves around keeping people uninformed and reliant on them to provide their entertainment needs, educational needs and in some cases shopping needs. It will keep you from coming to the understanding this goes much deeper than the United States, or blaming a politician for it. It does smack of "protection racket", and it also is there to help people get busted for resorting to unofficial methods of 'online data transfer', to help train a new wave of cyber criminals that can be recruited from by whatever despotic regime is involved in cyber war, etc. I could be over analyzing, and overly sauteeing my observations.. but I don't think so.

I am trying to keep myself from politicking right now, and finger pointing, but suffice it to say, this is not something you could vote a political party in or out and fix, this involves the people that "lobby"(read bribe/extort/assassinate/blackmail/defame/incriminate/schmooze) the politician regardless of political affiliation (D., R., I.) and their desire for the consumer (us), and their own coffers and protection, as well as their ability to remain behind the scenes with basically legal impunity. Organized crime, in true form.

In the words of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, "For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations." And we all know what happened to that guy.. well, we all know we don't know exactly what happened to him..
Meow.

 

[hp4000]

dont worry, google fiber will make everything all better!

 

[Marquise*]

I do admit that the person who have to announce those decisions or apply them publicly is the tip of a figurative iceberg of non-governmental and more commercial interests. It is really not make for the peoples but for that man made god named economy to feed us to it! Way more important than lives in other sectors!

 

[Sauteed_Onion]

I don't want to go political.. but this is part of a long, ongoing movement that hides behind politics to keep people feeling like they are involved, when in actuality the politics involved are just there to pacify me and most everybody else not 'involved'. The groups of people we can 'choose' to vote from who we are to believe represent our best interests are if not initially conscripted much earlier on, are blackmailed and extorted and made deadly aware that if they do not comply they will be replaced; whether with fatal consequences or serious overt defamation and public humiliation. In the U.S. currently, they got a 'steam release valve' card playing so to say, in that we may have a few legitimate wild cards in office 'allowed' to do good a little while to keep appearances up, the people doing this are not ignorant of the consequences of failing to keep appearances up. The woman from Malta, Daphne Caruana Galizia came extraordinarily close to things she was "not supposed" to even be thinking of, and she did not comply with the global machine. She paid dearly. The pathological lying and stupidness involved with the cover stories, and the low level thugs that did the dirty deed themselves taking the fall will probably not yield any real results either. But the people in power are still gonna pathological lie, and let people take falls etc. I suppose the "real result" is these people will just continue being lying scum and murderers that want more invasive influence etc..

In the hopes I don't go tooooo political(I'm not really), and not come off as too much of a 'theorist'.. I want to let ye see this..

Basically, these 'elected' or appointed officials (appointed ones being even worse because they were appointed outside the electorial process, and appointed for a specific reason), are all face men/women for larger money interests, and they all want something that is no way a good idea. They just have 'power and wealth so they must be right'. No, they were bought and paid for long long ago. And pledged allegiance to something much more foul and debauched than they ever should have gotten involved with. I got lied to plenty going to school. And my 'educated' guess is you all probably did too. And I'm not sure what to do about it. I just can't stand seeing things like this continually happen and sure millions of people get ticked off about it online, or even in their respective countries, but, nobody seems to do anything..

I think it is because nobody really knows who is behind it. The 'theories' of well, the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, the random family name, the Illuminati, the Vatican.. etc.. it is too vague and ambiguous to take action against. And probably not quite right either.

 

[Tai_MT]

While I don't know much about Net Neutrality (nor do I even really care about it all that much, since where I live we have plenty of competition, so we have absolutely amazing internet service). The way it's basically boiled down (to my understanding anyway) is that either you're going to let the companies run the internet or the government run it.

Honestly? I don't like either idea. Why not just enforce existing anti-Monopoly laws?

Personally, I just prefer the ability for customers to just choose what service they want. Some don't have that ability (like being stuck with Comcast, which from what I hear is far worse than my own provider). Introduce some competition and the problem solves itself. The Free Market solves the problem.

But, that's just my two cents. Whatever they're worth.

 

[Marquise*]

Strange... I feel they just had woke up as now the net is the undiscovered country to invade. Maybe that is why I feel some antiquated reptilian brains are taking control of our PTB's senses!

 

[FleshToDust]

Net neutrality is just the government wanting to control the internet. Remember, net neutrality has only been around for 2 years. Did you enjoy the internet before that? If you did then you have nothing to worry about. Corporations aren't going to take away netflicks or youtube. There wasn't some evil control on the internet in 2015 before net neutrality started. It's a scare tactic. That's all it is.

People say corporations will slow down your internet and only give the good speeds to those who pay more. Isn't that what amazon already does? If you pay more you get quick delivery. If you don't you get the standard shipping time.

What you don't want is government controlling things. Imagine youtube where you had to pass certain criteria to post content. It would become tv and tv is boring. You also wouldn't be allowed to have alternative views to the government. That's the real 1984. Companies just want to make money but government wants to control your life and tell you what you can and can't say, do or think.

 

[Poryg]

@FleshToDust No. Net neutrality, as it is from 2015 onwards (it was first introduced in 1990s, but the law wasn't as powerful) means that the internet is treated as an utility. So ISP are not allowed to discriminate either individual users by packages we know from TV (although I think this might be exaggerated), by bandwidth throttling or site accessibility limitation. Since the latter two have already happened and these cases were not in units, net neutrality as we know it was introduced. It wouldn't have had been necessary if ISP in USA hadn't been so driven with money and if there hadn't been a cartel, but competition. For example in our country everything works well even without net neutrality, but here there's proper competition...Mobile services, on the other hand, used to be a cartel until a couple years ago.

 

[FleshToDust]

Government won't give you competition. They'll stifle it. Businesses grow but then the government comes along and says "what you're doing isn't fair so you can't do that" and then the business suffers.

 

[Sauteed_Onion]

There are some pretty relevant things your statement alludes to, but the money and effort involved to "repeal" Net Neutrality is not invested to just leave things alone. Someone, some people, or maybe a lot of people / groups, are standing around salivating for a R.O.I. I'm not trying to get into the divisiveness political debate usually brings, but typically when big money is involved (and there is a lot of money involved to be certain) people on both sides of the political aisle (not necessarily conservative or liberal/ for more government overreach or less government in general) will bend over backwards to get a little (and most of the time undocumented/illegal) kick back.

An example of the American political people involved (and there's a bunch, keep in mind this is just what's going on in the U.S. and doesn't begin to delve into the blackmail and school yard posturing stuff) https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/11/16746230/net-neutrality-fcc-isp-congress-campaign-contribution , and this is only from some ISP's and what has been involved that has been publicly reported. This in itself shows a level of corruption (not really that bad all things considered), but is also only what was kept on the books for us to see to give some level of "transparency" a term that is way misused these days. That's just ISP companies, and if you notice the more "prominent" long term career politicians got a lot of that money. And a few of them are not much longer for this world either because of age or medical conditions. And they fear no consequences so to speak because to them, they are at the top of the food chain, and don't care what damage they leave behind.. it's a "what can I get accomplished for myself and my children" mentality not "How can I make the world a better place" mindset. And it comes from people who put their party first, not themselves or even their family. If they comply, they get a treat. If not, well many generally do not live to tell about it. Others get ousted by their "constituents", and some even go to jail for things they all need to be arrested and tried for.

We start delving into global "geopolitical" gigglegaggle junk, and the real motivations of why people try to take things to the U.N. or large multi-country conglomerates and it all starts to make maybe a little more sense, kind of. Well, not really, because it will leave you (or at least me) with the question.. why? I can kinda dance around a few scenarios that help me answer the why, but the why remains most of the time. I come at this at an extreme "conservative" view point. Conservative to the point of, I do not want any aspect of my religious choices messed with, so long as I don't physically inhibit somebody else's ability to exist and I want to look into things that are kept out of the history books, like the Bush family's storing of the gold of war criminals during world war ii (it goes deeper than blaming the Bush's or mass murderers that the books want you to look at), or who is profiting from all the arms sales to people that are branded terrorists. (it goes deeper than what we know as the military industrial complex). It usually boils down to why don't people pay attention to that stuff? Why do people bash people for not sharing their viewpoints? Why do people pay people to bash people who don't go along with the intended flow of global mandates?

And this internet surveillance insanity, and net neutrality stuff, and political correctness (if you say something offends some one you are considered a bully and can spend time in prison etc..) it is all part of a much larger interconnected agenda that is designed to keep us focused on anything else but the Who is behind it, and why they are doing it. I couldn't point at a dude in a picture (or dudette) and say "yeah that's the guy/girl" and we could all blame them. And I couldn't give a concise reason as to why they are doing it, because I think it entails insanity on the part of the doers. They are rebellious against having to accept responsibility to a higher form of existence, because they are desiring the precious things of this world, in an unhealthy way. Many U.S. politicians seek sexual derangement (child molesters, rapists, and more inhuman things than that), and they are like the servants of the people enforcing cruel things globally. It's disgusting yes. But it is going on, and it can be brought to task and dealt with (it should be realistically, or it just gets worse, it doesn't go away).

I kind of went off topic, but at the same time, it is on topic as it is all related. The key observation for me at least is, it cost somebody/some group/ some people/ some groups a lot of time and money to repeal this insanity. Somebody wanted to do something by doing this. My speculation is more intense surveillance and or more restrictive access to things I should have never thought about in the first place or they want to find more ways to get $ in their pocket. And probably a thick combination of both of these things. My apologies for talking about unpleasant things, but it's stuff that people aren't dealing with because they either don't know or don't want to know. And it's bad.

 

[Poryg]

All reports, including those coming from ISP, have shown that ISP and their business did not suffer from net neutrality. There hasn't been a competition, so they could not even suffer. In order for them to suffer they need to lose customers. But 2/3 of the Americans don't have an option to choose a second ISP, so that leaves the remaining third that is able to choose and able to fluctulate from one to another.
As I have said, if there had been proper competition, it wouldn't have been necessary. But since there isn't, the country has two options. Provide it or keep it at bay so it doesn't make use of its' superior position. And I have too much first hand experience of what monopoly does in our country to say it's wrong to keep monopolies at bay.

 

[Kes]

[mod]General note to everyone participating in this thread.
Please remember that we do not allow politicial discussion. This thread is already veering that way by several contributors. If it goes any further this will be locked.[/mod]

 

[Sauteed_Onion]

[mod]General note to everyone participating in this thread.
Please remember that we do not allow politicial discussion. This thread is already veering that way by several contributors. If it goes any further this will be locked.[/mod]

Yep, my fault. Its hard for me to address things concisely, without spewing a little political dislikings.

 

[dbchest]

i would not worry too much about this; i really do not think the general consumer has a whole lot to fear from the downfall of the net neutrality bill.

 

[trouble time]

i would not worry too much about this; i really do not think the general consumer has a whole lot to fear from the downfall of the net neutrality bill.

I wouldn't if I could choose from more than one ISP and if they actually had the power to enforce the rules that were in place before title II net neutrality (this is actually why they changed it to title II we had net neutrality before it was changed to title II but the Supreme Court ruled that they didn't have the power to enforce it so they made it a title II as fast as they could. Now its not a title II and they can't enforce anything except the ISP has to tell you what sites they block or throttle. A lot of people think we'll return to the 2014 internet, but thats the best case scenario possible as they can't legally enforce the rules they had in place back then. Even then, the best case possible is still that things stay the same, not that they get better. People like to talk about new small ISPs but it won't happen, thats like someone trying to start an airline, its possible but the initial investment is so high it's extremely unlikely for anyone who isn't already a millionaire or maybe even a billionaire depending on the coverage area.)

 

[dbchest]

@trouble time honestly though, what is going to get blocked? i really just do not believe that we are going to see an aggressive movement by any major ISP to block and throttle our favorites websites; people WILL switch ISPs if they're current provider makes web surfing inconvenient for them because we have that option here in America due to the existence of a competitive market, and in almost every case the ISP will not risk that.

that being said, we very well might see a large scale block on content provision sites that promote the illegal downloading of pirated software, which is entirely understandable. beyond that i do not know; maybe adult websites could see some threat, but the adult media industry is so massive that i am sure some incentives to keep their bandwidth open could be made.

the bottom line is that, for the average consumer who does not partake in morally questionable internet activity (like me), they're not going to see some major change in their internet experience.