RIP Net Neutrality.

[Dirty Dog]

Which does nothing about my point.

Just correcting your mistake.

 

[Anarax]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.