Duke4.net Forums: Net Neutrality....2.0? 3.0? - Duke4.net Forums

Jump to content

  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Net Neutrality....2.0? 3.0?  "All will be decided Dec 14"

User is offline   MusicallyInspired 

  • The Sarien Encounter

#1

What's everyone's stances/arguments on this? I was an avid net neutrality supporter back in the SOPA days, but this time I'm not sure what to think. I think it's naive to believe that advocating more control for the government over something as important as the internet is entirely a good thing. Short term gains, sure. But long term? Also, is the internet in its current state really the best it can be? I can't help but think that if there were some sort of dynamic approach to treating data and bandwidth that something more interesting could appear as a result. Now, I'm not a fan of the idea of certain ISP's blocking or banning certain services/websites/etc, but then again wouldn't the free market create a demand that another would supply? Also, in such an oppressive (let's say) environment as something like the death of net neutrality, wouldn't that be prime breeding ground and fertile soil for a new innovation or creative endeavour that would surpass the internet as we know it today? Again, short term that wouldn't be too great for too many people, but long term....

So I don't know what to think. There are certainly pros to keeping the internet as it is now. It's familiar and recognizable and we've had it for a long time. People fear the unknown and what they're not used to, which is what the death of net neutrality promises. People are more apt to see the dangers and downsides before the benefits of a thing they don't understand. It's easier for people without as much money to have an issue with discriminating data because they've been so used to just having everything. But there is something to be said for having to bog down other data at a slower rate to accommodate nondiscrimination. I somehow don't think it'll be the apocalypse of the internet as we know it that everyone is screaming it will be, but I'm not saying it'll be a cakewalk like many advocates of the death of net neutrality preach. It's going to be rough, I just believe that eventually something favourable could/will come out of it. The hard part is trudging through the mess of what would happen immediately after.

So that's just a bit of what's been coursing through my mind over this whole ordeal. I'm neither excited nor apprehensive about the approaching vote. I'm just genuinely curious as to the outcome of the game. I guess we'll find out after Dec 14th. What do you think?

This post has been edited by MusicallyInspired: 29 November 2017 - 12:35 PM

2

User is offline   Hendricks266 

  • Weaponized Autism

  #2

View PostMusicallyInspired, on 29 November 2017 - 12:32 PM, said:

Now, I'm not a fan of the idea of certain ISP's blocking or banning certain services/websites/etc, but then again wouldn't the free market create a demand that another would supply?

The free market causes businesses to seek consolidation.

This chart is from 2008.

Posted Image

The latest development:

Posted Image

View PostMusicallyInspired, on 29 November 2017 - 12:32 PM, said:

Also, in such an oppressive (let's say) environment as something like the death of net neutrality, wouldn't that be prime breeding ground and fertile soil for a new innovation or creative endeavour that would surpass the internet as we know it today?

Have you been following the extreme difficulty that Google Fiber has encountered virtually anywhere it needs to expand infrastructure connections?
3

User is offline   MusicallyInspired 

  • The Sarien Encounter

#3

View PostHendricks266, on 29 November 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:

The free market causes businesses to seek consolidation.


Isn't the government just one big consolidated mass? (controlled by corporations anyway)

Quote

Have you been following the extreme difficulty that Google Fiber has encountered virtually anywhere it needs to expand infrastructure connections?


Yes, I've heard about it. But again, the internet as it is still exists as it is for them to fall back on. They haven't truly been under pressure, it's just been something they want to do.

Also, if it sounds like I'm arguing against net neutrality, I'm not. Again, I'm not for or against, just looking for a conversation with points that are floating around my head. (I know, I'm a filthy centrist)
1

User is offline   Mark 

#4

The basic premise of NN causes me concern. When I see more government control and equality in the stated goals I worry. In my mind I picture yet another form of gov handouts to certain groups of people.I have to admit that no matter how much I read about it I still can't come to a definitive thumbs up or down on it.

This post has been edited by Mark.: 29 November 2017 - 02:54 PM

1

User is offline   Hank 

#5

Not sure here, random thoughts.

Pro, it sounds reasonable.
Net Neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favouring or blocking particular products or websites.

Con
The Liberals support it. :D

What/who is an Internet Service Provider? In my case, it is the old phone company, Bell. No competition to them in my area. In order to get unlimited access, and supposedly fast internet speed, I spend $1000 annually.

Before that, my landlines (remember the phone??) were Bell also. Oversees calls, were like $1.80/min. (1980 dollars)

Let the internet providers do what they are supposed to do, give me access to the internet, like the phone company did in the olden days. And no matter what number was dialed, a connection was made.

Bell is already promoting to block pirate sites. It looks good on paper, but who decides what is a pirate site? Or a site to be blocked? Nah, don't trust Bell's nobel motives.
http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ernet-1.4308068

Like drugs, catch me, and prosecute me, don't even think to 'protect' me from getting it.
3

User is offline   Forge 

  • Speaker of the Outhouse

#6

I'm stuck with comcast or nothing (unless I buy a satellite dish)

So if comcast (owned by NBC) decides I can no longer look at Fox Sports or ESPN because they want to force me to use MSNBC sports, then that's perfectly okay.
If Amazon gives comcast a huge kickback to block or slow traffic to ebay, overstock, newegg, tigerdirect, etc., etc., then that's perfectly okay as well.
It's corporations doing the censorship, not the government, so it's not the same and we should all be fine with it.
2

User is offline   Forge 

  • Speaker of the Outhouse

#7

Think of it as the internet with microtransactions.

Want to use search engines like google, bing, duckduckgo,yahoo - pay your isp an extra $5 a month
Want to use amazon, newegg, ebay, etc - pay your isp an extra $5 a month
Want to use netflix, youtube, etc - pay your isp an extra $10 a month
Want to visit duke4net, play a steam game, use discord, etc - pay your isp an extra $10 a month

What can possibly be wrong with that, and who would ever capitalize on it?

It's like the EA of communications.

This post has been edited by Forge: 29 November 2017 - 10:47 PM

5

User is offline   TerminX 

  • el fundador

  #8

View PostForge, on 29 November 2017 - 10:46 PM, said:

Think of it as the internet with microtransactions.

Want to use search engines like google, bing, duckduckgo,yahoo - pay your isp an extra $5 a month
Want to use amazon, newegg, ebay, etc - pay your isp an extra $5 a month
Want to use netflix, youtube, etc - pay your isp an extra $10 a month
Want to visit duke4net, play a steam game, use discord, etc - pay your isp an extra $10 a month

What can possibly be wrong with that, and who would ever capitalize on it?

It's like the EA of communications.

Yep, this is why we need net neutrality. This shit is getting ridiculous. These telecommunications companies take taxpayer money to build out their networks (and in some cases just don't do it), and then want to be able to tell you what you can and can't do with what should be classified as a utility by this point. You're at the whim of whatever the fuck whichever company monopolizes the service in your area wants to do. It would be like the power company saying you have to pay an extra $20 a month if you want to run an Xbox (running PlayStation is free because they signed a deal with Sony), or like whatever company got the contract to build out the roads in your area also getting the right to decide who drives on them and at what speed.

Every politician in favor of gutting net neutrality is almost guaranteed to have a record of voting in favor of whatever helps the corporations that lobby them and pay them off, at the expense of everyone else, no matter what stupid little letter they put next to their name to signify political affiliation. Red or blue, the vote is against you.
6

User is offline   Mark 

#9

But with more government oversight and regulation are you just switching who is going to pick the winners and losers anyway? I see lobbying and bribery on the increase with NN. Making something as big as the internet even more of a political football I don't see as a good thing.
So TX, we read one general thing you like about NN. Do you have any cons?

As far as "taking taxpayer money", sometimes they are forced to take it because of some political mandate for increasing coverage area in the name of equal access for everyone. Internet access will become yet another utility like phone, heat, electric that will have taxpayer paid programs for the poor to assure everyone has internet access. It will be thought of as yet another "right" that we all have. Its happening now and I see NN helping to grow it.

This post has been edited by Mark.: 30 November 2017 - 06:05 AM

1

User is offline   Forge 

  • Speaker of the Outhouse

#10

View PostMark., on 30 November 2017 - 05:59 AM, said:

....assure everyone has internet access. It will be thought of as yet another "right" that we all have. Its happening now and I see NN helping to grow it.

It's comcast's "policy" to have all their modems open-broadcast wifi. No user name or password needed to access it.
Since they're pretty much the only show in town - everyone who has their cable internet service has their modem - which creates a huge coverage area - especially in towns where the population is denser.

Great thing is, 99% of the people don't realize their xfinity modem is broadcasting outside their walls - and that their modems come with the default 10.0.0.1 address and the default username/password: admin/password.
The customer gets the modem via snail-mail, or a "tech" person shows up to install it. All the paper instructions tell the customer to do is to hook up the power and the cables. If a pc - plug that lan in too, if wifi - look for the xfinity wireless network with the strongest signal- the tech guy doesn't do anything beyond that either. No instructions on how to set up or access the modem, change the modem's password, change the security settings for the wifi being openly broadcast - it's all left at the default settings.
Drive around town with a laptop and hack everyone's shit. (don't connect to your home network with it unless you can alter the mac address)

Good times.

This post has been edited by Forge: 30 November 2017 - 06:45 AM

1

User is offline   Mark 

#11

I found that out just recently when Spectrum cable ( formerly Time Warner ) installed a new cable modem/router in my house. There was no documentation included so I did an internet search on what the new modem can do. I ran across more than one site that stressed that the first thing you do when activating the wireless portion of the modem is to change the generic name and password. I have no use for wireless yet so I haven't hit the button to start it up.

This post has been edited by Mark.: 30 November 2017 - 06:45 AM

1

User is offline   Forge 

  • Speaker of the Outhouse

#12

View PostMark., on 30 November 2017 - 06:40 AM, said:

I found that out just recently when Spectrum cable ( formerly Time Warner ) installed a new cable modem/router in my house. There was no documentation included so I did an internet search on what the new modem can do. I ran across more than one site that stressed that the first thing you do when activating the wireless portion of the modem is to change the generic name and password. I have no use for wireless yet so I haven't hit the button to start it up.

also change the modem's password - not just the wifi's password.

Should be a sticker on the bottom of the modem with the i.p. addy & username/password

This post has been edited by Forge: 30 November 2017 - 07:03 AM

1

#13

Netflix and video streaming services are abusing an arrangement that never had them in mind. As a non-netflix user (actually quite ANTI-Netflix) I really don't like my internet bill subsidizing them. I would like a cheaper bill that reflects my actual internet usage. Netflix has no business being in business right now. Karl Denninger has plenty on this if you care to search for him + Netflix.

What sucks about the whole thing is it's being shoved into an either/or situation when the real fundamental problem is that a small couple of companies (including porn) are currently functional ONLY because they have their costs of operations passed on to people who have no capacity to decline subsidizing them. There are paths where percentage of internet traffic influences whether a service falls under the umbrella of operations that require additional costs to utilize without throwing the vast majority of sites into the non-neutrality zone.

This is applied in other areas, such as higher tax costs for vehicles which take a higher toll on roadway maintenance costs.
2

User is offline   Forge 

  • Speaker of the Outhouse

#14

Make it like phones and only pay for the amount of data used, not which data you chose to use.
3

User is offline   Rellik 

#15

View PostMark., on 30 November 2017 - 05:59 AM, said:

But with more government oversight and regulation are you just switching who is going to pick the winners and losers anyway? I see lobbying and bribery on the increase with NN. Making something as big as the internet even more of a political football I don't see as a good thing.
So TX, we read one general thing you like about NN. Do you have any cons?

Here's the thing: the removal of Net Neutrality does not mean the government won't still fuck with your internet. Now in addition the govt' meddling, you now have direct corporate meddling too.

Now this might not be a bad thing if there was actual competition but last I checked the choices are: 1 shitty cable company, 1 shitty DSL company, shitty mobile data plans, and if you're lucky, a fiber company. (which plays into your last point the govt' paying ISPs to expand their reach)

Also keep in mind that these shitty companies go out of their way to prevent new ISP startups by lobbying city governments and denying access to utility poles. That's part of the reason Google ceased expanding Google Fiber.

This post has been edited by Rellik: 30 November 2017 - 11:22 AM

1

#16

View PostForge, on 30 November 2017 - 10:12 AM, said:

Make it like phones and only pay for the amount of data used, not which data you chose to use.

I would be fine with this. Netflix and Youtube would cease to exist as you know it though. I'm not only fine with this, I would consider that a very good thing.
2

User is offline   Hank 

#17

View PostForge, on 30 November 2017 - 10:12 AM, said:

Make it like phones and only pay for the amount of data used, not which data you chose to use.

Yep, this is how it works in Canada. Not perfect, but hey.


View PostSeeJaneWun, on 30 November 2017 - 12:16 PM, said:

I would be fine with this. Netflix and Youtube would cease to exist as you know it though. I'm not only fine with this, I would consider that a very good thing.

This Ajit Pai talking. The doom of the Free Internet.
None of his prediction came true in 2015, and there is no reason to accept them now. :D


Bottom line, I need the Internet also to conduct business, thus my decision is final. Keep the Net Neutrality. The Internet is (should be seen as) an utility, not a play thing for the entertainment industry or Amazon or what ever.
2

#18

View PostHank, on 30 November 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

Bottom line, I need the Internet also to conduct business, thus my decision is final. Keep the Net Neutrality. The Internet is (should be seen as) an utility, not a play thing for the entertainment industry or Amazon or what ever.

I recently read a short story that made me laugh. The basic gist was a replicator had been invented thereby rendering any concept of budgeting for quality and specific goals not only meaningless, but actually detrimental. Not just from the content creators... but even more from the content consumers. There was still an almost accidental space for quality and goals, but it was consistently drowned out by Vevo's makeup asmr crinkle challenge ft. spiderman's stranger things... because the shotgun approach yielded better results "on average" in terms of getting the only thing that mattered anymore... attention. The burden of attracting attention had ceased to cost anything, which resulted in an ecosystem of trash.

This is FAANG.

One guy eventually got the bright idea to replicate some Vikings. The Vikings proved quickly that the spineless horde did actually have physical spines that could be pulled out of their bodies.

This post has been edited by SeeJaneWun: 30 November 2017 - 06:55 PM

0

User is offline   Hank 

#19

View PostSeeJaneWun, on 30 November 2017 - 06:52 PM, said:

This is FAANG.

No shit Sherlock; another reason Net Neutrality must stay, so FAANG can not freely manipulate (falsify) data.

https://gizmodo.com/...rt-n-1820915324
Schneiderman is focused on the state of New York and he says that his office found tens of thousands of New Yorkers whose names may have been fraudulently used.


This post has been edited by Hank: 02 December 2017 - 01:42 PM

1

User is offline   Mark 

#20

"...charging internet companies like Netflix additional fees for speedier access to consumers..."
It makes sense to me.

This post has been edited by Mark.: 02 December 2017 - 04:00 PM

1

User is offline   Hank 

#21

View PostMark., on 02 December 2017 - 03:59 PM, said:

"...charging internet companies like Netflix additional fees for speedier access to consumers..."
It makes sense to me.

It does?????? Explain then.

To torrent a movie takes like a minute or two; iTunes takes like 10 minutes up to 40, for the same quality, but with it's copyrights protection, (and those I do respect for a good movie.)
AND I truly hate to pay extra to access my Revit Models that are like 2GB in size, just to humor fucking FFC and his entourage, because of fucking Netflix wants to close the free internet. :D
1

#22

View PostHank, on 02 December 2017 - 01:37 PM, said:

No shit Sherlock; another reason Net Neutrality must stay, so FAANG can not freely manipulate (falsify) data.

I think both legislative directions on offer are garbage and Forge presents the most appropriate approach (consumer pay to slay). Yes remote users pay more to cover the costs of reaching them, this is normal market balancing already in practice.

FAANG lives depend on non-users being unable to opt out of subsidizing them, which is why their data fraud has had any usefulness at all. If their users were required to pay for their usage the fraud would dry up very quickly. Same for internet porn... they would quickly find their business model changing if everyone had to monitor their monthly bandwidth usage relative to their monthly bill.
1

User is offline   Hank 

#23

View PostSeeJaneWun, on 02 December 2017 - 04:33 PM, said:

I think both legislative directions on offer are garbage and Forge presents the most appropriate approach (consumer pay to slay). Yes remote users pay more to cover the costs of reaching them, this is normal market balancing already in practice.

The catch, when did anyone in da White House act on reason?

Forge ain't da president, so I expect a huge fight until 14 Dec. :D where rationality (common scene) will loose. ;) open your wallets, internet users. B) pray I'm wrong again. ..............

p.s. thanks for all those votes, would still love you without them.


This post has been edited by Hank: 02 December 2017 - 05:56 PM

2

User is offline   Mark 

#24

deleted

This post has been edited by Mark.: 02 December 2017 - 06:02 PM

2

User is offline   Forge 

  • Speaker of the Outhouse

#25

Posted Image
2

User is offline   Balls of Steel Forever 

  • Balls of Steel Forever

#26

View PostForge, on 29 November 2017 - 10:46 PM, said:

Think of it as the internet with microtransactions.

Want to use search engines like google, bing, duckduckgo,yahoo - pay your isp an extra $5 a month
Want to use amazon, newegg, ebay, etc - pay your isp an extra $5 a month
Want to use netflix, youtube, etc - pay your isp an extra $10 a month
Want to visit duke4net, play a steam game, use discord, etc - pay your isp an extra $10 a month

What can possibly be wrong with that, and who would ever capitalize on it?

It's like the EA of communications.

the removal of net neutrality would be the end of free speech.
Want to access a website a big corporation doesn't like?
too bad, have to pay a shit load for it, and the website gets shut down due to no traffic.
Large websites would be able to bribe the internet service providers, to have themselves stay in business.
also ask for any competitors to be wiped in the dust.

Government wants to shut down some bad talk about them?
bribe a provider, no one has to know, footprint erased.

We would just have tor an vpns to rely on for a little bit.
before the ISP detects and slows down vpns to the point of 0 usability.

The irony of the us navy creating tor will be laughable,
and that's the best thing we'll get out of it.

This post has been edited by Balls Of Steel Forever: 02 December 2017 - 07:30 PM

1

#27

View PostBalls Of Steel Forever, on 02 December 2017 - 07:21 PM, said:

the removal of net neutrality would be the end of free speech.

Is free speech on the rise under the current platform paradigm?

View PostBalls Of Steel Forever, on 02 December 2017 - 07:21 PM, said:

The irony of the us navy creating tor will be laughable,

DARPA created the internet. DARPA knows. #NeverForget.

No seriously what do you really believe you are actually debating.
1

User is offline   Balls of Steel Forever 

  • Balls of Steel Forever

#28

View PostSeeJaneWun, on 02 December 2017 - 07:48 PM, said:

Is free speech on the rise under the current platform paradigm?

No.
It's currently on the decline.
Just like the general intelligence of the human species.

We could end it by nuclear war.
But we decide to just let the production of nukes keep going instead.

View PostSeeJaneWun, on 02 December 2017 - 07:48 PM, said:

DARPA created the internet. DARPA knows. #NeverForget.

We can only hope.

View PostSeeJaneWun, on 02 December 2017 - 07:48 PM, said:

No seriously what do you really believe you are actually debating.

Debating with forge?
No, he's just trying to make himself feel better with a bit of comedy about the upcoming apocalypse.

Debating with ajit pai and his cronies?
No, I have no effect.
And by law I can't speak contemptuously about it or suffer the wrath of the ninja punch.

On a worthless rant for no reason?
Everything changes it all stays the same.
Spoiler


This post has been edited by Balls Of Steel Forever: 02 December 2017 - 08:31 PM

1

User is offline   Rellik 

#29

I cant wait to pay for the Freedom of Speech™ package, where all the "offensive" (read: right wing) content is locked up behind just because SJWs keep on suing the ISPs for allowing that garbage on the base package.
1

User is offline   Forge 

  • Speaker of the Outhouse

#30

View PostRellik, on 02 December 2017 - 08:35 PM, said:

I cant wait to pay for the Freedom of Speech™ package, where all the "offensive" (read: right wing) content is locked up behind just because SJWs keep on suing the ISPs for allowing that garbage on the base package.

The internet was created primarily by cis white men - all leftards will not be allowed to participate based on the cultural appropriation hypocrisy mandate. Buzzfeed hq will be burned to the ground and all staff summarily lynched from the nearest dead tree with hemp dreadlocks (which will be cut down afterwards and not recycled).

This post has been edited by Forge: 02 December 2017 - 09:51 PM

3

Share this topic:


  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic


All copyrights and trademarks not owned by Voidpoint, LLC are the sole property of their respective owners. Play Ion Fury! ;) © Voidpoint, LLC

Enter your sign in name and password


Sign in options