# RIP Net Neutrality.



## granfire (Dec 14, 2017)

So Alabama elects a democrat to Senate, and the FCC revokes net neutrality (and Ia m surrounded by people stuck in apathy)

It will at bare minimum affect our pocket books, if not throttle our access to content all together.

making my way through the tumbleweeds of the study, I found this:
10 years before the election....
upcoming dictatorship and the constitution....
The Coming Dictatorship, and the Constitution


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 14, 2017)

Just so folks know what Net Neutrality actually is before the argument ensues

Net Neutrality


> *Net neutrality* is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.[2] For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 14, 2017)

There is still hope that the courts will have more sense than Der Trumpenfuhrers stooges in the FCC.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 14, 2017)

It's a complicated issue. I think I'll go read an old fashioned paper book.


----------



## granfire (Dec 14, 2017)

Xue Sheng said:


> Just so folks know what Net Neutrality actually is before the argument ensues
> 
> Net Neutrality


we got a taste of it, when Comcast extorted Netflix in exchange for not throttling bandwidth for Comcast customers for using Netflix streaming....


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 14, 2017)

Is this not politics?
I keep seeing it come up on apolitical forums, which always leads to political arguments, but somehow everyone denies it's political.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 15, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Is this not politics?
> I keep seeing it come up on apolitical forums, which always leads to political arguments, but somehow everyone denies it's political.


only if we make it that way.  we could be expressing our concern of the longevity of the MT sight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> only if we make it that way.  we could be expressing our concern of the longevity of the MT sight.


Net neutrality can be discussed without politics, I think, but almost never is (including in this thread, already).


----------



## Anarax (Dec 15, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Net neutrality can be discussed without politics, I think, but almost never is (including in this thread, already).



Politics are like marathon training, cross fit and veganism. People will work it into a conversation even if 1) it's unrelated, 2) no one asked.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 15, 2017)

Anarax said:


> Politics are like marathon training, cross fit and veganism. People will work it into a conversation even if 1) it's unrelated, 2) no one asked.


And when a thread is posted specifically about politics, the conversation will absolutely end up there.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 15, 2017)

Net neutrality isn't a political issue.  It's a business one and in my opinion Big Business needs to be regulate because morality doesn't run the business, money does.  We have seen examples of this in the past with how factories in the U.S. polluted the water and regulations were created to stop that because business isn't going to take the moral high ground.  London has been through this. The U.S. has been through this. India and China are going through this.  All of examples of what happens when businesses aren't regulated.  People are regulated by laws, Businesses are subject to similar laws to prevent behavior that is destructive to the well being of society.

If you don't think businesses will exploit you or other companies if there aren't any laws about communication then think again.  Businesses will do anything to make money so long as it's not illegal, and in some cases even if it's illegal they will still try to get away with it.  Many of the business laws that are out there today that regulate the behavior of  business, exists only because of the natural exploitative tendencies that businesses have.  If big business would exploit people then you can be guaranteed that they will exploit the control over the Internet connections if given the chance to.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Net neutrality isn't a political issue.  It's a business one and in my opinion Big Business needs to be regulate because morality doesn't run the business, money does.  We have seen examples of this in the past with how factories in the U.S. polluted the water and regulations were created to stop that because business isn't going to take the moral high ground.  London has been through this. The U.S. has been through this. India and China are going through this.  All of examples of what happens when businesses aren't regulated.  People are regulated by laws, Businesses are subject to similar laws to prevent behavior that is destructive to the well being of society.
> 
> If you don't think businesses will exploit you or other companies if there aren't any laws about communication then think again.  Businesses will do anything to make money so long as it's not illegal, and in some cases even if it's illegal they will still try to get away with it.  Many of the business laws that are out there today that regulate the behavior of  business, exists only because of the natural exploitative tendencies that businesses have.  If big business would exploit people then you can be guaranteed that they will exploit the control over the Internet connections if given the chance to.


Net neutrality isn't strictly a matter of whether businesses are regulated or not. It's a matter of what the point of the regulation is. And as something that is regulated by the government, and upon which opposing sides of the US political system tend to disagree, it tends to become a political discussion.


----------



## granfire (Dec 15, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Net neutrality isn't strictly a matter of whether businesses are regulated or not. It's a matter of what the point of the regulation is. And as something that is regulated by the government, and upon which opposing sides of the US political system tend to disagree, it tends to become a political discussion.


well, if we manage to keep the conversation polite, there should be no problem.
We have reached a time n our lives where we cannot afford to be apolitical anymore. 
Because everybody is:
you boss is using politics to keep your wages down, your landlord to raise your rent, and so on and so forth.

And currently we are at a cross roads where almost all life intersects with politics.
A noted philosopher called mankind 'Zoo-on Politicon' -  political creature. An Anchient Greek I assume.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 15, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Net neutrality isn't strictly a matter of whether businesses are regulated or not. It's a matter of what the point of the regulation is. And as something that is regulated by the government, and upon which opposing sides of the US political system tend to disagree, it tends to become a political discussion.


There are no opposing political sides of net neutrality.  The only opposing sides are those who would benefit from net neutrality and those who would benefit from not having it. Politics have nothing to do with it.  People would have you believe that it's a political issue so that you overlook the reality of it. The more you think about it as a Red vs Blue policy then less you'll focus on what it really does.  To prove my point, the first thing kempodisciple asked was if it was a political issue.  He didn't ask what are the effects of having or not having net neutrality.  He didn't ask what does net neutrality do or what did it prevent ISP providers from doing.    If you want to muddy the waters about an business issue then you paint it as something political.  This way you know people will either support or object to it without really understanding what it is.

I can guarantee that Comcast does not look at this as a political issue regardless of how others may see it as a political one.

This is with net neutrality






This is without Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality
What was removed since the end of Net Neutrality?
"Comcast doesn't prioritize Internet traffic or create paid fast lanes."   Since this is no longer illegal there is no reason for the companies not to do this and make more money for doing it.  I'm not sure but I'm thinking Google and Microsoft may have already caught on to this which is why they started laying down their own telecommunications cables Facebook and Microsoft Are Laying a Giant Cable Across the Atlantic
Tech companies are laying their own undersea cables

By laying their own cables they would be free from any "foul play" by companies that currently provide Internet Connections.  This makes sense to me because it eliminates the risk of having an ISP company being your competitor and sticking it to you the same way Comcast stuck it to Netflix.  It's the same way that you pay to have cable access to specific channels.  Soon your ISP will package your Internet like that.

You can actually see Comcast heading into this direction already.  So anyone looking at this from a political view point is being side tracked by someone who doesn't want you to understand what is going on.
Xfinity Internet Service Speed


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 15, 2017)

granfire said:


> We have reached a time n our lives where we cannot afford to be apolitical anymore.


True Words.  Especially since much of what goes on in creating policy is often lobbied by big business and other interest groups and many of them are often there for non-political reasons to get a policy made or to get a policy removed that will benefit them.   The political stuff that most people hear on the radio and news isn't even what's actually going on in Washington.  Even Trump stated that he used to pay money to both parties in congress.  The reason probably being that it takes both parties in congress to pass stuff.


----------



## granfire (Dec 15, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> There are no opposing political sides of net neutrality.  The only opposing sides are those who would benefit from net neutrality and those who would benefit from not having it. Politics have nothing to do with it.  People would have you believe that it's a political issue so that you overlook the reality of it. The more you think about it as a Red vs Blue policy then less you'll focus on what it really does.  To prove my point, the first thing kempodisciple asked was if it was a political issue.  He didn't ask what are the effects of having or not having net neutrality.  He didn't ask what does net neutrality do or what did it prevent ISP providers from doing.    If you want to muddy the waters about an business issue then you paint it as something political.  This way you know people will either support or object to it without really understanding what it is.
> 
> I can guarantee that Comcast does not look at this as a political issue regardless of how others may see it as a political one.
> 
> ...




Coming from Comcast?!
It's about worth as much as a GOP election promise to the unwashed masses.

They already throttled bandwidth for netflix customers, until the company caved and paid the ransom!


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 15, 2017)

So in this thread so far, there have been

-A reference to a democrat being elected

-A reference to the constitution/implication that this election is causing a dictatorship

-The suggestion that those in the FCC are "Der Trumpenfuhrers"

-Denial that the government regulating things is political (i don't know about red vs. blue, but for libertarians the government regulating business is absolutely political)

-And this phrase "It's about worth as much as a GOP election promise to the unwashed masses."

How exactly is this not political? Because as far as I can tell it is absolutely political.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 15, 2017)

And regarding the comments that my statement was distracting, or that it needs to be talked about. I agree that this involves business, but it is also political, and those stating it's not are in some form of denial. And I agree that it needs to be talked about, but this forum banned political discussions, and there are other places for political issues to be talked about (basically anywhere you look on the internet).


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 15, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> -The suggestion that those in the FCC are "Der Trumpenfuhrers"



Wrong. Der Trumpenfuhrer is singular. The stooges are his appointed minions. And the chief stooge is a former employee of one of the companies (Verizon) that stands to make a huge profit off this.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 15, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Wrong. Der Trumpenfuhrer is singular. The stooges are his appointed minions. And the chief stooge is a former employee of one of the companies (Verizon) that stands to make a huge profit off this.


Which does nothing about my point.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 15, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Which does nothing about my point.



Just correcting your mistake.


----------



## Anarax (Dec 15, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> So in this thread so far, there have been
> 
> -A reference to a democrat being elected
> 
> ...



Just because some wish to make a topic political doesn't mean that topic is inherently political. For example; I was telling my friend how the research being put forth by various companies for increasing a batteries storage capacity has wide sweeping applications. He went into a long winded speech about government conspiracies, various foreign wars and "the left ruining everything."  I know that's an extreme example, but in his mind he thought battery research was a political topic, thus he made it into a political conversation. Judging by the comments not everyone on here sees it as a political conversation either, or at the very least doesn't need to be turned into one.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 15, 2017)

granfire said:


> They already throttled bandwidth for netflix customers, until the company caved and paid the ransom!


Yes and this was a business decision and not a political one.  The only thing that can legally stop a company from doing something like this is to set regulations.  Without the regulation such actions are legal.  I really think Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, and Google will be able to provide a better product than what the cable companies will provide better service.  By running their own networks, these companies will gain control over the system, keep costs low (because they don't have to pay a third party like comcast), and they will have faster connections that what is currently out there.   The U.S. doesn't have the fastest Internet speeds so these new lines will be more competitive and better suited for today's technology.



Anarax said:


> Just because some wish to make a topic political doesn't mean that topic is inherently political.


  I agree 100% with this.  I can talk about Net Neutrality all day long and never mention a political party into the discussion. 



Anarax said:


> He went into a long winded speech about government conspiracies, various foreign wars and "the left ruining everything."


 People go blind and dumb when things get political.  Have a discussion about the importance of clean air and water and watch it spin into something that has nothing to do with clean air and water.  People are always missing the importance of things when they start taking a political side.


----------



## granfire (Dec 15, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Yes and this was a business decision and not a political one.  The only thing that can legally stop a company from doing something like this is to set regulations.  Without the regulation such actions are legal.  I really think Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, and Google will be able to provide a better product than what the cable companies will provide better service.  By running their own networks, these companies will gain control over the system, keep costs low (because they don't have to pay a third party like comcast), and they will have faster connections that what is currently out there.   The U.S. doesn't have the fastest Internet speeds so these new lines will be more competitive and better suited for today's technology.
> .



Well, with the new deregulations it becomes legal, which is the whole point of this exercise.

Add to that all the new mergers that limit competition even more.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2017)

granfire said:


> well, if we manage to keep the conversation polite, there should be no problem.
> We have reached a time n our lives where we cannot afford to be apolitical anymore.
> Because everybody is:
> you boss is using politics to keep your wages down, your landlord to raise your rent, and so on and so forth.
> ...


While I agree, I avoid politics on this forum, because that's the rules.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> There are no opposing political sides of net neutrality.  The only opposing sides are those who would benefit from net neutrality and those who would benefit from not having it. Politics have nothing to do with it.  People would have you believe that it's a political issue so that you overlook the reality of it. The more you think about it as a Red vs Blue policy then less you'll focus on what it really does.  To prove my point, the first thing kempodisciple asked was if it was a political issue.  He didn't ask what are the effects of having or not having net neutrality.  He didn't ask what does net neutrality do or what did it prevent ISP providers from doing.    If you want to muddy the waters about an business issue then you paint it as something political.  This way you know people will either support or object to it without really understanding what it is.
> 
> I can guarantee that Comcast does not look at this as a political issue regardless of how others may see it as a political one.
> 
> ...


There are politicians involved, and there are political ideologies that differ on the approach (reward investment vs. protect consumer). While the main concern isn't political for most people, the discussion (and some of the arguments about it) always become such.


----------



## granfire (Dec 15, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> There are politicians involved, and there are political ideologies that differ on the approach (reward investment vs. protect consumer). While the main concern isn't political for most people, the discussion (and some of the arguments about it) always become such.


well, at this point it becomes math and business science.
The numbers don't support the claims.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 16, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> There are politicians involved, and there are political ideologies that differ on the approach (reward investment vs. protect consumer). While the main concern isn't political for most people, the discussion (and some of the arguments about it) always become such.


Unfortunately this is true.  I just wish it wasn't.


----------



## jobo (Dec 18, 2017)

this seems to be a USA based conversation. In the UK our government has introduced the. Digital economy  act, that has made. up loading copy right matterial or just providing links to it, punishable by up to ten years prison, so bit torrenting is a risky pass time, at the same time it has required search engines and IP providers to restrict access to content that the governments disaprove of, this includes any political views it seems unsavory , news it would rather you didn't know/ it deems unacceptable and legal  pornography sites.

our government has the power to issue D notices that stop the press from publishing news stores contrary to the interest of the government, and the courts can stop the publication of names involved in court action, or just block a prosicution being reported at all, which is a bit pointless, if you can just google the American papers and get the information. But not any more it seems, the search engines won't pick it up

unless of course you use a Russian search engine, so the Russians are ironicaly supporting press freedom, couldn't make it up


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> this seems to be a USA based conversation. In the UK our government has introduced the. Digital economy act, that has made. up loading copy right matterial or just providing links to it, punishable by up to ten years prison, so bit torrenting is a risky pass time, at the same time it has required search engines and IP providers to restrict access to content that the governments disaprove of, this includes any political views it seems unsavory , news it would rather you didn't know/ it deems unacceptable and legal pornography sites.


Yes it's a USA based conversation.  We have a bunch of politicians that really don't understand the Internet or it's value.  Many of our law makers are well into their  60's and 70's. The average age for congress is 57, so we are dealing with some people who just aren't going to be brought up to speed with the Internet and how it works.  I'll put it this way.  One law maker suggested that the U.S. cuts off the Internet. Trump has also stated to cut off the Internet to stop terrorism.  To people in the tech world this makes as much sense as to put everyone in a deep sleep to stop crime.  The majority of the people who make laws in for the U.S. are lawyers and some doctors, which is what they should be. Unfortunately none of them have any knowledge of the Internet beyond Facebook, Email, and Netflix.

Our constitution prevents anything that controls free speech.  Having political views that seem unsavory is protected under the constitution.  But for the rest we do about the same thing here in terms of policing the Internet.



jobo said:


> our government has the power to issue D notices that stop the press from publishing news stores contrary to the interest of the government, and the courts can stop the publication of names involved in court action, or just block a prosicution being reported at all, which is a bit pointless, if you can just google the American papers and get the information. But not any more it seems, the search engines won't pick it up


This would be seen as a big threat to the constitution.  Many tech people in the U.S. don't want it to be as you described.  This allows government to hide information that may actually be important to the citizens. A lot of the protection that citizens here get come from the News exposing the truth.  Traditionally the News keeps tabs on the Government to ensure it walks a "fairly straight line."  I think much of this is because of the structure of the government.  Unfortunately it's the same structure that allows people to say whatever they want and to publishit as fact.  This is also why the U.S. has social groups that we could do without, but we can't get rid of because they are protected under free speech.  We have some crazy religions here as well do which is also protected under the constitutions.


----------

