|
Post by EmRR on Dec 7, 2017 13:22:38 GMT -6
Considering that the current administration will have US customers on metered connections ASAP....things like online storage will be the first casualty. Read that one again, folks. Then consider doing something to support net neutrality: 1. Go to: www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express2. Enter (under "Proceeding") the numbers 17-108. 3. In comments, say you support Title 2 oversight of ISPs. Also say that you support net neutrality. *Fill in the form carefully; they've made it less friendly and difficult to fill in by phone on purpose. They vote in one week. ooops.....
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 7, 2017 14:49:31 GMT -6
I don't think it counts as "political" when 99.9% of everyone supports it.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 7, 2017 15:30:09 GMT -6
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,934
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Dec 7, 2017 15:46:45 GMT -6
I don't think it counts as "political" when 99.9% of everyone supports it. Plus this is the type of site that you know will be throttled back!
|
|
|
Post by c0rtland on Dec 7, 2017 21:27:04 GMT -6
Considering that the current administration will have US customers on metered connections ASAP....things like online storage will be the first casualty. Read that one again, folks. Then consider doing something to support net neutrality: 1. Go to: www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express2. Enter (under "Proceeding") the numbers 17-108. 3. In comments, say you support Title 2 oversight of ISPs. Also say that you support net neutrality. *Fill in the form carefully; they've made it less friendly and difficult to fill in by phone on purpose. They vote in one week. ooops..... Thank you for that. Done ✅
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Dec 10, 2017 11:25:42 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 10, 2017 12:23:33 GMT -6
If EFF does, they are liars!
|
|
|
Post by donr on Dec 10, 2017 12:49:08 GMT -6
Maybe the best thing is for the FCC to have nothing to do with the internet. The rationale for any regulation as telephony or broadcast was sketchy in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 10, 2017 14:49:30 GMT -6
Regulation, when there is no problem to be solved, is questionable.
The internet is a parallel system. The way to get more bandwidth is by building parallel connections. Such is currently purchased from third parties who mostly buy their bandwidth from AT&T. Net neutrality blocks AT&T from selling such direct which would probably reduce costs especially for new start-ups who might compete with Google, Amazon, and Microsoft.
AT&T gigabit fiber has been a real eye-opener. So far Amazon has been the only service employing even half of my available bandwidth. Websites that were slow using the old 20 MB connection are no faster because the connection on their end is no faster.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,934
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Dec 11, 2017 9:15:26 GMT -6
Part of the FCC's mandate is to protect the public airwaves, as more and more of Internet is consumed via mobile and WiFi the FCC's role becomes clearer and clearer. Let us not forget that the basic infrastructure of the net originated in the world of Telephone, where the FCC's role is very clearly defined & that industry has evolved to where Telephone is now almost all net based. The RF world is built around a limited bandwidth that has in recent times been sold off to the highest bidder and seen industries like the wireless microphone industry scrambling as the giant monster called cellphone grabs more and more bandwidth!
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 11, 2017 16:05:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 11, 2017 16:50:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 11, 2017 22:36:41 GMT -6
for the last mile or two of transmission, it certainly does have to do with the local ISPs. They're the ones who own the infrastructure depending on where you live.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 12, 2017 10:50:29 GMT -6
I need to read more from both sides. I've always thought - from a songwriter's prospective - NN would make it impossible to use ISPs to charge for usage of music/video. I could be totally misinformed, though...and that ship has probably already sailed...but I'm not sure I see what the problem is with charging for more usage...
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 12, 2017 11:00:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 12, 2017 11:02:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 12, 2017 11:14:16 GMT -6
Nice excerpt:
"So unlike the common carrier phone company, who does not “mine” our phone usage for monetization and advertising as its business model, Google is receiving trillions of data points a day from all of us, and is monetizing every last drop of it to the tune of billions in profit, while paying us nothing. It’s what they do to make money. And it’s the greatest money mill the world has ever known. What’s shocking is that no city or state or country has declared that this scheme is just a good old fashioned “barter.” All of the precious personal data Google sucks out of us through these ISP pipes is worth billions, and Google should be taxed on its receipt of that data, just like any other barter. Just like a water meter or electric meter, that data-flow from us to Google should be metered and Google should be charged. Instead, Amazon and Google are sucking retail jobs, retail sales and other infrastructure right out of our state and local economies, fueled by the free data we keep giving them 24/7. The IRS should be awash in cash from this “data for services” wealth transfer – and so should cities and states. Instead, Google parks that profit overseas, and hires scores of lobbyists in the U.S. to keep it that way."
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 12, 2017 11:16:46 GMT -6
Andddd here it is...
Here’s just a short list of things Google already does to discriminate against me as a musician (things a common carrier should not be able to get away with):
a) they deny musicians like me access to their Content ID blocking program, to keep us from effectively dealing with piracy on their site with the help standard fingerprinting technology
b) they won’t allow musicians like me to steer YouTube traffic to our own crowd-funding sites anymore, like: ArtistShare, PledgeMusic or Patreon;
c) they don’t share any information with musicians about who listens to our music, despite the incredible value they siphon from illegal posting of our music, while paying us pennies
d) they allow users to upload our music, without asking those users even one single question about ownership or licensing rights
e) they encourage piracy through search and autocomplete, which helps Google profit from all traffic, regardless of its legality
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 12, 2017 11:34:47 GMT -6
Remember SOPA? And what Google did to install the bloody fear of God (Google) into every website owner in the world? How they instigated shutting the internet down for a day? And how the little whining public cried? And how that bill was stricken in 24 hours? And how musicians and songwriters were screwed even further than they already were by the big G? Congress and politicians have never moved so fast in their entire life. Make no mistake, Google is a force to be reckoned with, and if you are "against" their politics and monitizing schemes, you are 1000% F'd. www.theverge.com/2012/1/18/2715300/sopa-blackout-wikipedia-reddit-mozilla-google-protest
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 12, 2017 11:39:17 GMT -6
Net neutrality is a white washed phrase that is a slam dunk to support. Who wouldn't be in favor of it? The reality is that the phrase doesn't necessarily mean what it implies. But as Bob's article shows, 99% of people say TLDR and post support net neutrality! on their facebook page.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,934
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Dec 12, 2017 11:46:40 GMT -6
I need to read more from both sides. I've always thought - from a songwriter's prospective - NN would make it impossible to use ISPs to charge for usage of music/video. I could be totally misinformed, though...and that ship has probably already sailed...but I'm not sure I see what the problem is with charging for more usage... I get what your saying but this not just about useage as they would like to frame it, you pay for useage now, what it's about is the potential for useage. Example Jules makes a Sweetheart deal with Verizon so all his ads are seen, Suddenly RGO take 4 times as long to load on Verizon. Now maybe you could pay to play, but let's say GS's deal has an exclusivity agreement , RGO is slow on Verizon. The thing is net nuetrality protects potential competition Let's say I start a new web based company, my cost to enter the market place just went sky high because I need to make high speed deals with all the players ! Think EBay or PayPal sucks ? Well they have the cash to pay for the highest speed, you think the new guy in his basement and his bodies do? It's like the Today show since Universal bought NBC, sure all the big stars even those tied to other companies get booked, but Google all the new faces, you will find 90% attached to Universal that could be your internet!
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,934
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Dec 12, 2017 11:54:47 GMT -6
Net neutrality is a white washed phrase that is a slam dunk to support. Who wouldn't be in favor of it? The reality is that the phrase doesn't necessarily mean what it implies. But as Bob's article shows, 99% of people say TLDR and post support net neutrality! on their facebook page. The problem like so many times is Companies like Google Co- Op a Concept repackage it and sell us Thier patented Copyrighted version, sort of like a middle class tax cut! I hate to say it though as an ISP google is the best I have had !
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 12, 2017 11:57:17 GMT -6
Until the gov stops corporations from having the same rights as humans, and until there are term limits for politicians, and until corporations are stopped from tailoring laws to suit their financial bottom line by way of lobbyists, expect the continued rise of the uber rich, the continued decline of the middle class, and the continued growth of poverty in the richest country (??) on earth. All cloaked under the guise of making the internet "more fair and better". It's all a huge smokescreen guys..... The biggest "land grab" in the history of mankind. And the public is so enamored with their amazon shopping, google searches and Facebook that they can't even see it.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 12, 2017 12:01:57 GMT -6
Net neutrality is a white washed phrase that is a slam dunk to support. Who wouldn't be in favor of it? The reality is that the phrase doesn't necessarily mean what it implies. But as Bob's article shows, 99% of people say TLDR and post support net neutrality! on their facebook page. The problem like so many times is Companies like Google Co- Op a Concept repackage it and sell us Thier patented Copyrighted version, sort of like a middle class tax cut! I hate to say it though as an ISP google is the best I have had ! Or google slows down the rest of the internet that they don’t have some sort of stake in.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 12, 2017 12:15:05 GMT -6
Would you rather have a slightly slower internet -- or monolithic puppet control over your government by one of the most greedy corporations ever to rule over the planet?
General public : "What? It took an extra second to load Facebook on my phone....wtf....." "F musicians and songwriters. Those greedy basterds all live in Beverly Hills and drive Bently's. They don't need any protection from anything"
|
|