🌎 Discussion: Online Piracy, AI, Net Neutrality, Killswitch, and Other Internet Issues II

[CaptainWagner]

I don't get how people still think the GOP is "sticking up for the little guy" or "returning power to the people" when they do crap like this. What's more insane is the people who try to defend it. I saw one person on Twitter claiming Net Neutrality gives the government complete control over the Internet and allows social media companies to censor content. And of course the whole thing is master minded by George Soros.

It's just so massively stupid on so many levels. First off, if the government had "complete control of the Internet", then social media COULDN'T censor anything! Because it would be a government entity subject to free speech protections! And to those freaking out about Soros this, Soros that, without net neutrality George Soros can go and buy an Internet provider and be like "LOL, no more Breitbart for you"!

 

[Raiden]

Everyone should understand how serious it is to end the Net Neutrality. It's just another example of the way Trump is destroying America every passing day with his stupidity.

 

[Teelie]

I understand exactly how important and how utterly futile it is to change a Republicans mind without paying them a substantial bribe campaign contribution to get them to even listen.

 

[Sithborg]

Now, this is an interesting twist...

http://thehill.com/policy/technolog...-to-influence-fcc-on-net-neutrality-with-fake

 

[Teelie]

Just read about that on Ars Technica. It is more of Pai's deliberate ignoring of the public's support of neutrality. The more he can obsfucate the truth the better he can deny who he is really beholden to (the telecoms).

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I don't get how people still think the GOP is "sticking up for the little guy" or "returning power to the people" when they do crap like this. What's more insane is the people who try to defend it. I saw one person on Twitter claiming Net Neutrality gives the government complete control over the Internet and allows social media companies to censor content. And of course the whole thing is master minded by George Soros.

It's just so massively stupid on so many levels. First off, if the government had "complete control of the Internet", then social media COULDN'T censor anything! Because it would be a government entity subject to free speech protections! And to those freaking out about Soros this, Soros that, without net neutrality George Soros can go and buy an Internet provider and be like "LOL, no more Breitbart for you"!

They should just get rid of Net Neutrality in solid red states.

When their favorite country music and NASCAR sites are slower than dial up their tears would be delicious.

 

[Fading]

They should just get rid of Net Neutrality in solid red states.

When their favorite country music and NASCAR sites are slower than dial up their tears would be delicious.

Sadly, they'd still find a way to blame the left. Let's say net neutrality does go away (which is looking likely). I don't see big cable/internet companies immediately throttling YouTube, or Netflix the same week net neutrality disappears. Let's say Trump gets voted out, and a democrat gets in 3 years from now (assuming Trump's not impeached first). Then at this point the price hikes start to really kick in. They'll find a way to blame the new president over blaming Trump, and his FCC pick.

Hell, they'll probably find a way to blame Obama for net neutrality being a thing in the first place. I'm not sure how, but the anti net neutrality crowd has been doing serious mental gymnastics for awhile anyway.

I guess my point is, even if they cry, they won't learn anything. They're eagerness to defend Trump won't allow them to blame his actions. If anything, they'll blame Google for the new Comcast YouTube $10 per month packages, rather than recognizing the removal of net neutrality let Comcast do it in the first place.

 

[Fading]

One more thing I want to chime in on. The argument that the market will correct itself comes from people who have never lived in small towns, or cities. My hometown has one cable source, which has the only reliable internet. The other option is a horrible DSL service, which I think might have went under years ago.

I moved to a larger city, which would still be considered small next to other big cities. My internet options bumped up to two.

Just like car dealerships, a lot of larger internet companies hold monopolies over entire areas. If you want reliable Internet, you have to go through them. There just isn't an option.

It already bugs me how far behind the US is falling behind in internet speeds in more rural areas. Especially considering Cable companies could push speeds MUCH faster, but don't. Saving those speeds to one up competitors down the road. The thought of throttling on top of that is maddening. If you live in areas with only one option, you'll just have to pay the extra fees, or go without YouTube, Netflix, ect. Which is obviously exactly what big internet providers want. For you to only visit sites that benefit them.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I used to have wireless from a small company. Low price, fast connection.

Well they got shut down last year and now we're forced to use Comcast.

Losing net neutrality will bring this problem beyond wireless connection and into actual content manipulation.

This is absolutely horrifying. People simply don't know what's at stake.

 

[terry78]

Yeah, I was using 4GCommunity but they just went under. I'm thinking about using Unlimitedville now.

 

[Herofan]

I myself find it hard to understand how passionate and belligerent a lot of people get about net neutrality, a lot more understandable that most people are indifferent and perplexed about what it is or means.

Hardcore liberals of course would be upset about any decrease of governmental regulation and increase in corporate wellbeing (at least some corporations, others deserve favoritism) but there's not much appeal or urgency to more moderate people.

You can't get most people worked up about it because they either think corporations restricting content for its political views is too unlikely and/or that there's no right to get Internet content free or for the lowest possible price. Also, optional "fastlanes," on the Internet as with actual traffic, just don't strike a lot of people with terror or outrage.

 

[Teelie]

It's all a smokescreen to for ISP's in particular to gouge both customers and competitors for extra money and to incentivize people to use their own services. Comcast, Verizon and AT&T are particularly notorious for it.

But as you say, most people don't care... yet. Even though they will complain when their internet bill goes up, up, up, the services like Netflix slow down or just stop working but refuse to listen to why.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I myself find it hard to understand how passionate and belligerent a lot of people get about net neutrality, a lot more understandable that most people are indifferent and perplexed about what it is or means.

Hardcore liberals of course would be upset about any decrease of governmental regulation and increase in corporate wellbeing (at least some corporations, others deserve favoritism) but there's not much appeal or urgency to more moderate people.

You can't get most people worked up about it because they either think corporations restricting content for its political views is too unlikely and/or that there's no right to get Internet content free or for the lowest possible price. Also, optional "fastlanes," on the Internet as with actual traffic, just don't strike a lot of people with terror or outrage.

lolwut?

The only people who benefit from getting rid of net neutrality are telecom giants.

Only an idiot would give up net netrality so a telecom giant could force you to use Bing, MySpace and Ted Cruz political sites by selectively throttling and price gouging content providers.

Trump supporters and other republicans are so against resonable, consumer friendly regulation that they'll destroy a free and open internet.

Once again fighting against their own interest.

Idiots.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I also enjoy the republican brainwashing of this mythical "free market". The market is dictated by the regulations the government imposes on it. Always. History has show us conclusive evidence, particularly in the past 30 years, that when corporations are given less regulations they f*** over the American people so they can increase their bottom line. You can't even argue this fact. The only good that will come from Pai doing this is the fact that it will immediately be challenged in courts, most likely run all the way to SCOTUS, then maybe we can get some sanity with SCOTUS ruling in favor of net neutrality which would end this BS once and for all.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

If corporations are considered people by the Supreme Court then I think a free an open internet could be framed as a free speech, free assembly, and free press issue since the internet is like the printing press invention multiplied times a billion.

And if the internet is a public utility, it's at least partially the governments responsibility.

It sucks that the GOP stole a SC pick, "butter emails".

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I'm hoping that this is one of those issues they will put partisan BS aside and do the right thing for the future of this country. Stranger things have happened...

 

[Herofan]

Only an idiot would give up net netrality so a telecom giant could force you to use Bing, MySpace and Ted Cruz political sites by selectively throttling and price gouging content providers.

Making more used sites like facebook and netflix pay more doesn't seem like either gouging them nor destroying them and forcing users to use different sites, let alone only conservative sites.

The only good that will come from Pai doing this is the fact that it will immediately be challenged in courts, most likely run all the way to SCOTUS, then maybe we can get some sanity with SCOTUS ruling in favor of net neutrality which would end this BS once and for all.

Tollroads, much as you may dislike them, haven't been found to be unconstitutional. Nor has having cable television channels.

If corporations are considered people by the Supreme Court then I think a free an open internet could be framed as a free speech, free assembly, and free press issue since the internet is like the printing press invention multiplied times a billion.

There is a free speech right to not be prohibited from being published, not to be published without any payment to or contract with a printer or distributor.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Making more used sites like facebook and netflix pay more doesn't seem like either gouging them nor destroying them and forcing users to use different sites, let alone only conservative sites.



Tollroads, much as you may dislike them, haven't been found to be unconstitutional. Nor has having cable television channels.



There is a free speech right to not be prohibited from being published, not to be published without any payment to or contract with a printer or distributor.

2005, AT&T suggested giving preferential treatment to some web giants in exchange for money, starting the whole thing.

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. 2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (they actually sued the FCC over this)

2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their services. (this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace)

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.


2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place:

"Verizon lawyer Helgi Walker made the company’s intentions all too clear, saying the company wants to prioritize those websites and services that are willing to shell out for better access."

2014: Verizon and Comcast throttled Netflix data and held those customers hostage to a huge bribe from Netflix

I think this timeline shows just how crucial it really is to a free and open internet.

Don't forget about that time we, the tax payers, paid $400 Billion dollars for the telecoms to upgrade us to fiber optics that 99% of us never got.

So let the free market decide it for us huh? What, EXACTLY, does the free market have to say about the vast majority of Americans having exactly 1 option for high speed internet? They all made agreements long ago as to where their lines will cover and it must be some strange coincidence that almost none of those lines cross into the competitors territory right?

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

[YT]u9Dg-g7t2l4[/YT]

 

[BrollySupersj]

2005, AT&T suggested giving preferential treatment to some web giants in exchange for money, starting the whole thing.

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. 2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (they actually sued the FCC over this)

2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their services. (this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace)

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.


2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place:



2014: Verizon and Comcast throttled Netflix data and held those customers hostage to a huge bribe from Netflix

I think this timeline shows just how crucial it really is to a free and open internet.

Don't forget about that time we, the tax payers, paid $400 Billion dollars for the telecoms to upgrade us to fiber optics that 99% of us never got.

So let the free market decide it for us huh? What, EXACTLY, does the free market have to say about the vast majority of Americans having exactly 1 option for high speed internet? They all made agreements long ago as to where their lines will cover and it must be some strange coincidence that almost none of those lines cross into the competitors territory right?

That is ****ing horrific, and the flood gates will open with pure terror should net neutrality die. We are so close to something so unimaginably awful.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Butter emails.

 

[Teelie]

Comcast is already hinting at "paid fast lanes" even before the official killing off of net neutrality.

Instead, Comcast now vaguely says that it won't "discriminate against lawful content" or impose "anti-competitive paid prioritization." The change in wording suggests that Comcast may offer paid fast lanes to websites or other online services, such as video streaming providers, after Pai's FCC eliminates the net neutrality rules next month.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

The only reason any of the big telecoms ever said they were "for" net neutrality was because they were contractually obligated to from accepting the $400 billion to upgrade the country to fiber which they never did.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

Republicans Finally Set a Date to Kill Net Neutrality



https://gizmodo.com/republicans-finally-set-a-date-to-kill-net-neutrality-1820645506

Seriously folks, call your representatives. Fax or email them. File a complaint with the FCC. If you're like me and too lazy to search to do all those things text the word "resist" to 504-09 and a script bot will do all the hard work for you. Now is the time to make your voice heard before we all get f***ed.

That text message feature worked great until it compiled the letter. It literally jumbled up my message and sent jibberish to all my Representatives.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

It instead wrote in , I hope Congress will Censor the internet.

I wrote:

"...I'm calling for strong net neutrality rules and I hope Congress can let the FCC do its job and not engage in favor of corporate bias that will ultimately censor the internet and curb freedom. "

The bot sent my faxes as:

"...and I hope Congress can will ultimately censor the internet and curb freedom. let the FCC do it's job and not engage in favor corporate bias that Thank you,"