|
|
Post by c0rtland on May 16, 2018 15:23:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 16, 2018 19:27:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by b1 on May 17, 2018 6:43:44 GMT -6
I don't think the vote will change anything, will it?
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on May 17, 2018 10:48:22 GMT -6
Internet was fine up to 2015.
2017: everyone believed that stuff that hadn't happened up to 2015 would somehow happen immediately..
2018: Nothing happened, same as 2015.
I wonder when folks will realize that it was all a lies to get government control over large corporations that had ~25 years to hatch their nefarious plans yet didn't..
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,934 
|
Post by ericn on Jun 4, 2018 1:30:25 GMT -6
I don't think the vote will change anything, will it? It means nothing a safe vote of protest at best, the senate knows the house won’t do anything and even then would the president sign it. Simply put a waste of time and taxpayers money, but a bunch of ads will tout many a vote and that’s what it’s all about, getting re-elected on either side. |
|
|
|
Post by kilroyrock on Jun 12, 2018 22:06:48 GMT -6
Internet was fine up to 2015. 2017: everyone believed that stuff that hadn't happened up to 2015 would somehow happen immediately.. 2018: Nothing happened, same as 2015. I wonder when folks will realize that it was all a lies to get government control over large corporations that had ~25 years to hatch their nefarious plans yet didn't.. It's never been about whether it happened in the past. It's about making sure no one comes around in the future and gets totalitarian to make stock holders happy when they have run out of ways to make profit off the current model. No one thought to do as Hitler did until he came around, if there was a way to have stopped it all, it wouldn't hurt would it? I'd like to not have to get permission to go to RGO because the purple site paid money out to get first dibs on traffic. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 13, 2018 6:22:18 GMT -6
Internet was fine up to 2015. 2017: everyone believed that stuff that hadn't happened up to 2015 would somehow happen immediately.. 2018: Nothing happened, same as 2015. I wonder when folks will realize that it was all a lies to get government control over large corporations that had ~25 years to hatch their nefarious plans yet didn't.. It's never been about whether it happened in the past. It's about making sure no one comes around in the future and gets totalitarian to make stock holders happy when they have run out of ways to make profit off the current model. No one thought to do as Hitler did until he came around, if there was a way to have stopped it all, it wouldn't hurt would it? I'd like to not have to get permission to go to RGO because the purple site paid money out to get first dibs on traffic. Well, Hitler did it from the side of government control.. After using populist alarmism (fear the Jewish, fear foreigners, fear your neighbors, etc) to elicit a movement of people to cry for the government to enact laws and policies to "protect" them from these non-existent threats.. Sounds a lot like "fear the companies, fear the owners, fear capitalism" to me.. Yet capitalism has by far been the most helpful agent in lifting humanity from extreme poverty. Children these days are bored with more luxury than most kings and pharaohs ever experienced. So that kinda doesn't work as an argument, does it? I'm VASTLY more afraid of government controlling my personal life, especially since we're practically living 1984 right now with the domestic spying, TSA/Homeland, alarmist propaganda from our elected officials, and unprecedented power grabs in the form of regulations from government agencies that have grown unchecked in this age of "terrorism".. Anyway, history is filled with stories of people vying for control and power, and almost all of those stories are about them forming religions and governments to control the hearts/minds and bodies of those they wanted to exploit. None of these stories are about corporations that ruined countries.. That outcome has historically been from governmental mismanagement. |
|
|
|
Post by kilroyrock on Jun 13, 2018 8:38:59 GMT -6
It's never been about whether it happened in the past. It's about making sure no one comes around in the future and gets totalitarian to make stock holders happy when they have run out of ways to make profit off the current model. No one thought to do as Hitler did until he came around, if there was a way to have stopped it all, it wouldn't hurt would it? I'd like to not have to get permission to go to RGO because the purple site paid money out to get first dibs on traffic. Well, Hitler did it from the side of government control.. After using populist alarmism (fear the Jewish, fear foreigners, fear your neighbors, etc) to elicit a movement of people to cry for the government to enact laws and policies to "protect" them from these non-existent threats.. Sounds a lot like "fear the companies, fear the owners, fear capitalism" to me.. Yet capitalism has by far been the most helpful agent in lifting humanity from extreme poverty. Children these days are bored with more luxury than most kings and pharaohs ever experienced. So that kinda doesn't work as an argument, does it? I'm VASTLY more afraid of government controlling my personal life, especially since we're practically living 1984 right now with the domestic spying, TSA/Homeland, alarmist propaganda from our elected officials, and unprecedented power grabs in the form of regulations from government agencies that have grown unchecked in this age of "terrorism".. Anyway, history is filled with stories of people vying for control and power, and almost all of those stories are about them forming religions and governments to control the hearts/minds and bodies of those they wanted to exploit. None of these stories are about corporations that ruined countries.. That outcome has historically been from governmental mismanagement. Ajit Pai is doing this from the side of government control, as a non-elected official appointed by a party that is notoriously in the pockets of large corporations. If you think of the government and corporations separate, that's the flaw with your rebuttal. The internet should be a utility, except it contains information people want to mine from it, similar to how it's not illegal to campaign door to door ignoring "no soliciting" signs, as it benefits those that make the rules. Those people own the internet pipeline. If you want to boil carbohydrate-laden spaghetti with your water instead of steaming broccoli, you have the right to do that, yes? If you want to read a story on the internet about how to take over Comcast, you want to have the right to do that too, right? Should you be allowed to only watch videos from Neve or any content on youtube you want? You won't have that right without net neutrality. Without a confirmed net neutrality (which is a removal of restriction, by enacting a law to allow the freedom no matter what), Comcast can take away search results from your feed. Block sites that would not pay a "fast lane" charge, therefore slowing your internet artificially for their own profit. Anything they want that makes their stock go up. This isn't big government, this is smart regulation to reduce corporate greed from taking advantage of citizens, because they have enormous wealth and power and can do as they please. Once the vote to repeal it went in, Comcast immediately changed their pledge. arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-deleted-net-neutrality-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/Or try this: Equate the Net Neutrality to the Bill of Rights, not the laws related to imprisonment. Time to add one more. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 13, 2018 9:05:21 GMT -6
Well, Hitler did it from the side of government control.. After using populist alarmism (fear the Jewish, fear foreigners, fear your neighbors, etc) to elicit a movement of people to cry for the government to enact laws and policies to "protect" them from these non-existent threats.. Sounds a lot like "fear the companies, fear the owners, fear capitalism" to me.. Yet capitalism has by far been the most helpful agent in lifting humanity from extreme poverty. Children these days are bored with more luxury than most kings and pharaohs ever experienced. So that kinda doesn't work as an argument, does it? I'm VASTLY more afraid of government controlling my personal life, especially since we're practically living 1984 right now with the domestic spying, TSA/Homeland, alarmist propaganda from our elected officials, and unprecedented power grabs in the form of regulations from government agencies that have grown unchecked in this age of "terrorism".. Anyway, history is filled with stories of people vying for control and power, and almost all of those stories are about them forming religions and governments to control the hearts/minds and bodies of those they wanted to exploit. None of these stories are about corporations that ruined countries.. That outcome has historically been from governmental mismanagement. Ajit Pai is doing this from the side of government control, as a non-elected official appointed by a party that is notoriously in the pockets of large corporations. If you think of the government and corporations separate, that's the flaw with your rebuttal. The internet should be a utility, except it contains information people want to mine from it, similar to how it's not illegal to campaign door to door ignoring "no soliciting" signs, as it benefits those that make the rules. Those people own the internet pipeline. If you want to boil carbohydrate-laden spaghetti with your water instead of steaming broccoli, you have the right to do that, yes? If you want to read a story on the internet about how to take over Comcast, you want to have the right to do that too, right? Should you be allowed to only watch videos from Neve or any content on youtube you want? You won't have that right without net neutrality. Without a confirmed net neutrality (which is a removal of restriction, by enacting a law to allow the freedom no matter what), Comcast can take away search results from your feed. Block sites that would not pay a "fast lane" charge, therefore slowing your internet artificially for their own profit. Anything they want that makes their stock go up. This isn't big government, this is smart regulation to reduce corporate greed from taking advantage of citizens, because they have enormous wealth and power and can do as they please. Once the vote to repeal it went in, Comcast immediately changed their pledge. arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-deleted-net-neutrality-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/Or try this: Equate the Net Neutrality to the Bill of Rights, not the laws related to imprisonment. Time to add one more. "If you want to boil carbohydrate-laden spaghetti with your water instead of steaming broccoli, you have the right to do that, yes?" In New York it's already illegal to sell more than 16oz of "sugary drink" to consumers and many other cities have enacted punitive taxes to slow the sales of so-called sugary drinks.. So no, the precedent is being set that government is starting to rule our lives.. And you're right, what we have right now is NOT true capitalism and I never said that crony corporatism was good, nor did I say that I endorse it. I simply said that I fear what the government can and will do to it's citizens more than what a corporation will do with my data. I fully support removing lobbyists and crony politics from government. I also think that government should be so small that nobody could use it to empower their businesses beyond their competition. And I will never believe that the internet is a utility. It's clearly and plainly a service. One that I pay for, and that's a good thing. I will welcome the day that I can pay for only what I use, rather than supplementing a whole lot of junk that I don't want or need. Before the natural gas deregulation in my state, I was paying at least 3x what I pay now because there was only one state-sanctioned "company".. Once our governor cut that bullshit out and I was able to choose my provider, competition popped up and even 20 years later I pay a lot less, even with inflation. Same for the telecom industry, which I technically work in. Before deregulation, I was FORCED to pay for local access, long distance, etc. Now I pay less for all unlimited access around the globe, with unlimited data too.. Because I'm no longer beholden to a single government controlled Bell offshoot, competition has taken hold and I can choose my own fate. |
|
|
|
Post by kilroyrock on Jun 13, 2018 9:29:49 GMT -6
Ajit Pai is doing this from the side of government control, as a non-elected official appointed by a party that is notoriously in the pockets of large corporations. If you think of the government and corporations separate, that's the flaw with your rebuttal. The internet should be a utility, except it contains information people want to mine from it, similar to how it's not illegal to campaign door to door ignoring "no soliciting" signs, as it benefits those that make the rules. Those people own the internet pipeline. If you want to boil carbohydrate-laden spaghetti with your water instead of steaming broccoli, you have the right to do that, yes? If you want to read a story on the internet about how to take over Comcast, you want to have the right to do that too, right? Should you be allowed to only watch videos from Neve or any content on youtube you want? You won't have that right without net neutrality. Without a confirmed net neutrality (which is a removal of restriction, by enacting a law to allow the freedom no matter what), Comcast can take away search results from your feed. Block sites that would not pay a "fast lane" charge, therefore slowing your internet artificially for their own profit. Anything they want that makes their stock go up. This isn't big government, this is smart regulation to reduce corporate greed from taking advantage of citizens, because they have enormous wealth and power and can do as they please. Once the vote to repeal it went in, Comcast immediately changed their pledge. arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-deleted-net-neutrality-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/Or try this: Equate the Net Neutrality to the Bill of Rights, not the laws related to imprisonment. Time to add one more. "If you want to boil carbohydrate-laden spaghetti with your water instead of steaming broccoli, you have the right to do that, yes?" In New York it's already illegal to sell more than 16oz of "sugary drink" to consumers and many other cities have enacted punitive taxes to slow the sales of so-called sugary drinks.. So no, the precedent is being set that government is starting to rule our lives.. And you're right, what we have right now is NOT true capitalism and I never said that crony corporatism was good, nor did I say that I endorse it. I simply said that I fear what the government can and will do to it's citizens more than what a corporation will do with my data. I fully support removing lobbyists and crony politics from government. I also think that government should be so small that nobody could use it to empower their businesses beyond their competition. And I will never believe that the internet is a utility. It's clearly and plainly a service. One that I pay for, and that's a good thing. I will welcome the day that I can pay for only what I use, rather than supplementing a whole lot of junk that I don't want or need. Before the natural gas deregulation in my state, I was paying at least 3x what I pay now because there was only one state-sanctioned "company".. Once our governor cut that bullshit out and I was able to choose my provider, competition popped up and even 20 years later I pay a lot less, even with inflation. Same for the telecom industry, which I technically work in. Before deregulation, I was FORCED to pay for local access, long distance, etc. Now I pay less for all unlimited access around the globe, with unlimited data too.. Because I'm no longer beholden to a single government controlled Bell offshoot, competition has taken hold and I can choose my own fate. To equate to your soda analogy - Net Neutrality for internet providers is to a law enacted to not allow states to regulate soda sizes. They do not correlate directly, please do not confuse the two types of laws. Go back to the Bill of Rights vs "Murder is against the law". You confuse 'paying for what I use" with "paying for what I'm allowed to use". Net Neutrality makes sure you can pay for whatever you want to use, and not be limited based on corporate greed. Your internet provider is allowed to be a police officer for your content if they so choose without Net Neutrality. As far as your natural gas de-regulation: Gas has the requirement that it must be sold at an agreed market rate, therefore there is no actual competition in the market on price. I will agree that you're paying 3x less, but there is no profit in the natural gas industry. Most gas companies also are energy companies in order to make a profit. There is a "service" fee that is added to the natural gas cost, which is where any distinction is made. Gas is delivered as a physical product, and you can change services based on reliability, but there is no actual price fluctuation on the actual gas. So your de-regulation is actually CHANGED regulation, but no less regulation. When the deregulation and privitization of electricity was introduced in my state 12 years ago, the cost of my electricity doubled, as the competitive rate was higher than the market rate that was allowed, and I've been paying through the nose ever since. And I am a data analyst at one of the biggest energy companies in the world, I work with the data day in and day out. No one makes money on gas. It's an afterthought and requirement to sell. Fascinating industry. Your telecom correlation is false though. Your cost for telecom didn't drop because of any de-regulation, your local/long-term is cheap because very few people pay for phonelines in their houses. I don't even have one running into my house anymore. That's simple supply/demand. There were more phone companies 20 years ago, they were purchased and consolidated due to the constriction of the market to the big 3 for the most part. As for your cellphone: You are unlimited on your data due to the competition, but without net neutrality to make it necessary, also would limit what you're able to look at based on content, so you'd have unlimited access to what they want you to have it unlimited to. Google fiber could block Bing. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 13, 2018 10:02:18 GMT -6
"If you want to boil carbohydrate-laden spaghetti with your water instead of steaming broccoli, you have the right to do that, yes?" In New York it's already illegal to sell more than 16oz of "sugary drink" to consumers and many other cities have enacted punitive taxes to slow the sales of so-called sugary drinks.. So no, the precedent is being set that government is starting to rule our lives.. And you're right, what we have right now is NOT true capitalism and I never said that crony corporatism was good, nor did I say that I endorse it. I simply said that I fear what the government can and will do to it's citizens more than what a corporation will do with my data. I fully support removing lobbyists and crony politics from government. I also think that government should be so small that nobody could use it to empower their businesses beyond their competition. And I will never believe that the internet is a utility. It's clearly and plainly a service. One that I pay for, and that's a good thing. I will welcome the day that I can pay for only what I use, rather than supplementing a whole lot of junk that I don't want or need. Before the natural gas deregulation in my state, I was paying at least 3x what I pay now because there was only one state-sanctioned "company".. Once our governor cut that bullshit out and I was able to choose my provider, competition popped up and even 20 years later I pay a lot less, even with inflation. Same for the telecom industry, which I technically work in. Before deregulation, I was FORCED to pay for local access, long distance, etc. Now I pay less for all unlimited access around the globe, with unlimited data too.. Because I'm no longer beholden to a single government controlled Bell offshoot, competition has taken hold and I can choose my own fate. To equate to your soda analogy - Net Neutrality for internet providers is to a law enacted to not allow states to regulate soda sizes. They do not correlate directly, please do not confuse the two types of laws. Go back to the Bill of Rights vs "Murder is against the law". You confuse 'paying for what I use" with "paying for what I'm allowed to use". Net Neutrality makes sure you can pay for whatever you want to use, and not be limited based on corporate greed. Your internet provider is allowed to be a police officer for your content if they so choose without Net Neutrality. As far as your natural gas de-regulation: Gas has the requirement that it must be sold at an agreed market rate, therefore there is no actual competition in the market on price. I will agree that you're paying 3x less, but there is no profit in the natural gas industry. Most gas companies also are energy companies in order to make a profit. There is a "service" fee that is added to the natural gas cost, which is where any distinction is made. Gas is delivered as a physical product, and you can change services based on reliability, but there is no actual price fluctuation on the actual gas. So your de-regulation is actually CHANGED regulation, but no less regulation. When the deregulation and privitization of electricity was introduced in my state 12 years ago, the cost of my electricity doubled, as the competitive rate was higher than the market rate that was allowed, and I've been paying through the nose ever since. And I am a data analyst at one of the biggest energy companies in the world, I work with the data day in and day out. No one makes money on gas. It's an afterthought and requirement to sell. Fascinating industry. Your telecom correlation is false though. Your cost for telecom didn't drop because of any de-regulation, your local/long-term is cheap because very few people pay for phonelines in their houses. I don't even have one running into my house anymore. That's simple supply/demand. There were more phone companies 20 years ago, they were purchased and consolidated due to the constriction of the market to the big 3 for the most part. As for your cellphone: You are unlimited on your data due to the competition, but without net neutrality to make it necessary, also would limit what you're able to look at based on content, so you'd have unlimited access to what they want you to have it unlimited to. Google fiber could block Bing. I don't confuse the "bill of rights" vs. "murder is against the law".. The bill of rights guarantees me the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.. If I'm murdered, then I was denied those rights. If I murder someone, I deny them those rights. We never needed a law about "murder" and there is really only one type of law, the one that controls people based on what another person has deemed right/wrong. There isn't a single right that the government hasn't packaged up in laws in order to dictate who gets to use them and how they can use them, and then sold back to us in the form of licenses and regulation. And I disagree with pretty much all your supposition, which is the main reason I said the snarky comment about companies not doing these supposedly horrible things in the decades before NN, but I don't have the time or energy to keep going. Just know that without these greedy corporations who've not yet done these bad deeds in the 20 years they had available to do them, they brought us huge advancements in technology that we all enjoy, and you're using right now to denounce the fact that it's available for you to use. Double standards abound, but that's life these days I suppose. Good luck with your net neutrality thing, and thanks for all the fish. |
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jun 13, 2018 10:16:34 GMT -6
Internet was fine up to 2015. 2017: everyone believed that stuff that hadn't happened up to 2015 would somehow happen immediately.. 2018: Nothing happened, same as 2015. I wonder when folks will realize that it was all a lies to get government control over large corporations that had ~25 years to hatch their nefarious plans yet didn't.. It wasn't fine. ATT and I think Verizon where both caught throttling their service to unlimited users. Thats what its really about. |
|
|
|
Post by kilroyrock on Jun 13, 2018 10:20:03 GMT -6
To equate to your soda analogy - Net Neutrality for internet providers is to a law enacted to not allow states to regulate soda sizes. They do not correlate directly, please do not confuse the two types of laws. Go back to the Bill of Rights vs "Murder is against the law". You confuse 'paying for what I use" with "paying for what I'm allowed to use". Net Neutrality makes sure you can pay for whatever you want to use, and not be limited based on corporate greed. Your internet provider is allowed to be a police officer for your content if they so choose without Net Neutrality. As far as your natural gas de-regulation: Gas has the requirement that it must be sold at an agreed market rate, therefore there is no actual competition in the market on price. I will agree that you're paying 3x less, but there is no profit in the natural gas industry. Most gas companies also are energy companies in order to make a profit. There is a "service" fee that is added to the natural gas cost, which is where any distinction is made. Gas is delivered as a physical product, and you can change services based on reliability, but there is no actual price fluctuation on the actual gas. So your de-regulation is actually CHANGED regulation, but no less regulation. When the deregulation and privitization of electricity was introduced in my state 12 years ago, the cost of my electricity doubled, as the competitive rate was higher than the market rate that was allowed, and I've been paying through the nose ever since. And I am a data analyst at one of the biggest energy companies in the world, I work with the data day in and day out. No one makes money on gas. It's an afterthought and requirement to sell. Fascinating industry. Your telecom correlation is false though. Your cost for telecom didn't drop because of any de-regulation, your local/long-term is cheap because very few people pay for phonelines in their houses. I don't even have one running into my house anymore. That's simple supply/demand. There were more phone companies 20 years ago, they were purchased and consolidated due to the constriction of the market to the big 3 for the most part. As for your cellphone: You are unlimited on your data due to the competition, but without net neutrality to make it necessary, also would limit what you're able to look at based on content, so you'd have unlimited access to what they want you to have it unlimited to. Google fiber could block Bing. I don't confuse the "bill of rights" vs. "murder is against the law".. The bill of rights guarantees me the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.. If I'm murdered, then I was denied those rights. If I murder someone, I deny them those rights. We never needed a law about "murder" and there is really only one type of law, the one that controls people based on what another person has deemed right/wrong. There isn't a single right that the government hasn't packaged up in laws in order to dictate who gets to use them and how they can use them, and then sold back to us in the form of licenses and regulation. And I disagree with pretty much all your supposition, which is the main reason I said the snarky comment about companies not doing these supposedly horrible things in the decades before NN, but I don't have the time or energy to keep going. Just know that without these greedy corporations who've not yet done these bad deeds in the 20 years they had available to do them, they brought us huge advancements in technology that we all enjoy, and you're using right now to denounce the fact that it's available for you to use. Double standards abound, but that's life these days I suppose. Good luck with your net neutrality thing, and thanks for all the fish. No worries, I've got my towel ready for departure (that was a douglas adams reference right?)  Please - this is healthy debate, don't take things personal, and I have 600 billion pounds of respect for you, your intelligence and everything. I just feel very strongly for the NN thing, and while you know what's going on and good with it, a lot of people aren't understanding the rhetoric surrounding it, that it's not cut and dry. I understand your point though! |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 13, 2018 10:22:01 GMT -6
Internet was fine up to 2015. 2017: everyone believed that stuff that hadn't happened up to 2015 would somehow happen immediately.. 2018: Nothing happened, same as 2015. I wonder when folks will realize that it was all a lies to get government control over large corporations that had ~25 years to hatch their nefarious plans yet didn't.. It wasn't fine. ATT and I think Verizon where both caught throttling their service to unlimited users. Thats what its really about. Throttling the "super streamers" or the top percentage of folks using so much bandwidth that they slowed the rest down.. So they "regulated" usage to maintain the throughput to the majority of users.. That's pretty socialist of them in my opinion, regulating the few to preserve the many.. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 13, 2018 10:25:19 GMT -6
I don't confuse the "bill of rights" vs. "murder is against the law".. The bill of rights guarantees me the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.. If I'm murdered, then I was denied those rights. If I murder someone, I deny them those rights. We never needed a law about "murder" and there is really only one type of law, the one that controls people based on what another person has deemed right/wrong. There isn't a single right that the government hasn't packaged up in laws in order to dictate who gets to use them and how they can use them, and then sold back to us in the form of licenses and regulation. And I disagree with pretty much all your supposition, which is the main reason I said the snarky comment about companies not doing these supposedly horrible things in the decades before NN, but I don't have the time or energy to keep going. Just know that without these greedy corporations who've not yet done these bad deeds in the 20 years they had available to do them, they brought us huge advancements in technology that we all enjoy, and you're using right now to denounce the fact that it's available for you to use. Double standards abound, but that's life these days I suppose. Good luck with your net neutrality thing, and thanks for all the fish. No worries, I've got my towel ready for departure (that was a douglas adams reference right?) Please - this is healthy debate, don't take things personal, and I have 600 billion pounds of respect for you, your intelligence and everything. I just feel very strongly for the NN thing, and while you know what's going on and good with it, a lot of people aren't understanding the rhetoric surrounding it, that it's not cut and dry. I understand your point though! It's all good! You got the reference too.. I love a good healthy discussion, but I really gotta get some stuff done at work! |
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jun 13, 2018 11:01:37 GMT -6
It wasn't fine. ATT and I think Verizon where both caught throttling their service to unlimited users. Thats what its really about. Throttling the "super streamers" or the top percentage of folks using so much bandwidth that they slowed the rest down.. So they "regulated" usage to maintain the throughput to the majority of users.. That's pretty socialist of them in my opinion, regulating the few to preserve the many.. As a grandfathered guy with unlimited data. I care. Why is that because I happen to have unlimited vs the guy with 4Gb cap that My speed should be slowed down because I utilize it more then they do? |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 13, 2018 11:33:43 GMT -6
It's never been about whether it happened in the past. It's about making sure no one comes around in the future and gets totalitarian to make stock holders happy when they have run out of ways to make profit off the current model. No one thought to do as Hitler did until he came around, if there was a way to have stopped it all, it wouldn't hurt would it? I'd like to not have to get permission to go to RGO because the purple site paid money out to get first dibs on traffic. Well, Hitler did it from the side of government control.. After using populist alarmism (fear the Jewish, fear foreigners, fear your neighbors, etc) to elicit a movement of people to cry for the government to enact laws and policies to "protect" them from these non-existent threats.. Sounds a lot like "fear the companies, fear the owners, fear capitalism" to me.. Yet capitalism has by far been the most helpful agent in lifting humanity from extreme poverty. Children these days are bored with more luxury than most kings and pharaohs ever experienced. So that kinda doesn't work as an argument, does it? I'm VASTLY more afraid of government controlling my personal life, especially since we're practically living 1984 right now with the domestic spying, TSA/Homeland, alarmist propaganda from our elected officials, and unprecedented power grabs in the form of regulations from government agencies that have grown unchecked in this age of "terrorism".. Anyway, history is filled with stories of people vying for control and power, and almost all of those stories are about them forming religions and governments to control the hearts/minds and bodies of those they wanted to exploit. None of these stories are about corporations that ruined countries.. That outcome has historically been from governmental mismanagement. Not true. What's needed is balance. Righjt now we have unbridled capitalism in control, lining their own pockets at the expense of others. A certain amount of regulation is necessary because if you let the capitalists take control with no checks what you get is oligarchic distatorship, a la Russia. Which is where we're heading right now. There have to be controls on government and capitalism to protect the citizenry, the country, and, increasingly, the environment. And there need to be controls on the controls so things don't swing too far in the other direction. Right now we're experiencing an unprecedented attack on the carefully balanced system deevised by the founding fathers. Not a good thing. Capitalism cannot be permitted to become the government.
I don't know whether it has to do with the recent change in internet regulation or not, but in recent weeks I've noticed a marked slowing down of most of the sites I visit, despite running browser optimization software every few days, paying AT&T for high speed, service, etc. Advertising, however, serves up quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 13, 2018 11:45:54 GMT -6
It wasn't fine. ATT and I think Verizon where both caught throttling their service to unlimited users. Thats what its really about. Throttling the "super streamers" or the top percentage of folks using so much bandwidth that they slowed the rest down.. So they "regulated" usage to maintain the throughput to the majority of users.. That's pretty socialist of them in my opinion, regulating the few to preserve the many.. Most of those "super streamers" were pirates hosting massive numbers of Bittorrent streams. Most of the protest against that was organized through the Bittorrent piracy community, with backing from Google and other pro-piracy corporations.
There were people hosting litertally thousands of Bittorrent and Kazaa streams. When Jammie Thomas-Rassett was busted she was hosting artound 1500 streams on Kazaa, although she was only charged with a handful.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 13, 2018 12:19:55 GMT -6
Throttling the "super streamers" or the top percentage of folks using so much bandwidth that they slowed the rest down.. So they "regulated" usage to maintain the throughput to the majority of users.. That's pretty socialist of them in my opinion, regulating the few to preserve the many.. As a grandfathered guy with unlimited data. I care. Why is that because I happen to have unlimited vs the guy with 4Gb cap that My speed should be slowed down because I utilize it more then they do? You do know that we're in agreement, right? They did that stuff because their capacity wasn't on par with the demand that increased exponentially against their forecasts, that they had to throttle certain people (something like 100GB or more a month) to keep the majority happy. I don't necessarily agree with the approach, although I do understand it. I think people should get what they pay for. You buy a plan with a cap, you get capped, or you buy more. You buy unlimited, you get unlimited. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 13, 2018 12:46:39 GMT -6
Well, Hitler did it from the side of government control.. After using populist alarmism (fear the Jewish, fear foreigners, fear your neighbors, etc) to elicit a movement of people to cry for the government to enact laws and policies to "protect" them from these non-existent threats.. Sounds a lot like "fear the companies, fear the owners, fear capitalism" to me.. Yet capitalism has by far been the most helpful agent in lifting humanity from extreme poverty. Children these days are bored with more luxury than most kings and pharaohs ever experienced. So that kinda doesn't work as an argument, does it? I'm VASTLY more afraid of government controlling my personal life, especially since we're practically living 1984 right now with the domestic spying, TSA/Homeland, alarmist propaganda from our elected officials, and unprecedented power grabs in the form of regulations from government agencies that have grown unchecked in this age of "terrorism".. Anyway, history is filled with stories of people vying for control and power, and almost all of those stories are about them forming religions and governments to control the hearts/minds and bodies of those they wanted to exploit. None of these stories are about corporations that ruined countries.. That outcome has historically been from governmental mismanagement. Not true. What's needed is balance. Righjt now we have unbridled capitalism in control, lining their own pockets at the expense of others. A certain amount of regulation is necessary because if you let the capitalists take control with no checks what you get is oligarchic distatorship, a la Russia. Which is where we're heading right now. There have to be controls on government and capitalism to protect the citizenry, the country, and, increasingly, the environment. And there need to be controls on the controls so things don't swing too far in the other direction. Right now we're experiencing an unprecedented attack on the carefully balanced system deevised by the founding fathers. Not a good thing. Capitalism cannot be permitted to become the government.
I don't know whether it has to do with the recent change in internet regulation or not, but in recent weeks I've noticed a marked slowing down of most of the sites I visit, despite running browser optimization software every few days, paying AT&T for high speed, service, etc. Advertising, however, serves up quickly.
I disagree with everything you said for exactly the opposite reasons you give. Go figure. I believe our forefathers strategically limited the role of government via our constitution and bill of rights. All else since has been politics-for-money while blaming everything else, including capitalism. Don't look at the man behind the curtain! I don't believe capitalism invaded politics. I believe politics invaded capitalism. And now it's trendy to diss the single most powerful social motivator by folks who enjoy all of it's benefits. Only in the first world are we so collectively pacified by our lifestyles that we can sit around our computers and phones (brought to you by greedy capitalism) and bang out hate against something that has done the most good in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 13, 2018 13:50:13 GMT -6
Not true. What's needed is balance. Righjt now we have unbridled capitalism in control, lining their own pockets at the expense of others. A certain amount of regulation is necessary because if you let the capitalists take control with no checks what you get is oligarchic distatorship, a la Russia. Which is where we're heading right now. There have to be controls on government and capitalism to protect the citizenry, the country, and, increasingly, the environment. And there need to be controls on the controls so things don't swing too far in the other direction. Right now we're experiencing an unprecedented attack on the carefully balanced system deevised by the founding fathers. Not a good thing. Capitalism cannot be permitted to become the government.
I don't know whether it has to do with the recent change in internet regulation or not, but in recent weeks I've noticed a marked slowing down of most of the sites I visit, despite running browser optimization software every few days, paying AT&T for high speed, service, etc. Advertising, however, serves up quickly.
I disagree with everything you said for exactly the opposite reasons you give. Go figure. I believe our forefathers strategically limited the role of government via our constitution and bill of rights. All else since has been politics-for-money while blaming everything else, including capitalism. Don't look at the man behind the curtain! I don't believe capitalism invaded politics. I believe politics invaded capitalism. And now it's trendy to diss the single most powerful social motivator by folks who enjoy all of it's benefits. Only in the first world are we so collectively pacified by our lifestyles that we can sit around our computers and phones (brought to you by greedy capitalism) and bang out hate against something that has done the most good in the world. You know, we're in a business that has suffered more than almost any other from the domination of big business, yet some persist in not seeing it. It's like massive Stockholm Syndrome - everybody identifies with the people who are ripping them off because everybody has the totally irrational hope of becoming one of those people.
Politics invading capitalism? It's not the politicians paying obscene amounts of money to curry favor with capitalists - it's the opposite. Politicians don't buy corporations, corporations buy politicians. Politicians get elected to office and walk out rich. They don't get rich on a lawmaker's salary. Congress passes massive tax cuts for major corporations and pretend it helps small business. How does giving billions of dollars to Big Oil, Big Telecom, Big Phartma, etyc, etc, help you building boutique audio gear? Ity doesn't. If anything it ends up costing you money. How does selling off mineral rights to our national parks for pennies on the dollar help anybody except the mega-mining corporations? It doesn't, and it destroys our valuable natural resources that we need to keep the planet habitable.
After the tax cuts the heads of a number of the large corpoprations were asked how they planned to use the windfall. The ovewhelming majority stated they intended to issue windfall dividends to stockholders, award large bonuses to major executives, and to buy back stock. NONE said they were going to use it to raise wages. NONE said anything about investing in product development. NONE said anything about doing anything constructive or anything that would help the economy. Of course the stock market went nuts, because stockholders were getting a payout. But the stock market is NOT the real economy, regardless of what the paid pundits might tell you. And the stock market increases are nothing more than pumping hot air into an already over inflated bubble. And the one sure thing about bubbles it that they always pop. And who get hurt when they do? We do. Average people, workers, and small business. People lose their homes, smaller businesses go bankrupt because nobody can buy their products.
Right now the government is riding on prosperity that resulted from the policies of the previous administration while doing everything possible to tear down the policies responsible for that prosperity. Due to the way effects are delayed in our economic system it's likely that the disastrous effects of current policy will not be felt until the current bunch are out of power, at which point the people who get elected to fix the mess will be blamed for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 27, 2018 9:30:36 GMT -6
Internet was fine up to 2015. 2017: everyone believed that stuff that hadn't happened up to 2015 would somehow happen immediately.. 2018: Nothing happened, same as 2015. I wonder when folks will realize that it was all a lies to get government control over large corporations that had ~25 years to hatch their nefarious plans yet didn't.. It wasn't fine. ATT and I think Verizon where both caught throttling their service to unlimited users. Thats what its really about. No, net neutrality is not in any way related to throttling users or data caps. It was always ostensibly about not discriminating about types of data. The whole thing was kicked off by a misinformation campaign or outright lie about Netflix and peering with Cogent. It is a giant bogeyman. Read about unwinding the whole kerfluffle here: www.streamingmediablog.com/2014/10/mlab-netflix-routing-decisions.htmlAnd another www.streamingmediablog.com/2014/11/cogent-now-admits-slowed-netflixs-traffic-creating-fast-lane-slow-lane.html |
|
Please - this is healthy debate, don't take things personal, and I have 600 billion pounds of respect for you, your intelligence and everything. I just feel very strongly for the NN thing, and while you know what's going on and good with it, a lot of people aren't understanding the rhetoric surrounding it, that it's not cut and dry. I understand your point though!