What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video
-
@dafyre said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@penguinwrangler said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller The problem is I don't trust the government to be an impartial watchdog.
But is that not better than no watchdog at all?
The problem is that the watchdog can get confused as to who it is supposed to be watching.
Still remains, give the options.... a watchdog you don't trust, or just letting the inmates take over, which do you prefer?
-
@dafyre Seriously, another one. Ok, phone companies have been under Title II for nearly a century. Where is the rampant censorship from the FCC on your phone calls? Show me one example of the FCC interfering with your phone calls maliciously in the last century. There is none, just like classifiying ISPs Title II would lead to none.
-
And since these kinds of laws don't give any power to censor or spy.... one has to assume that if the gov't is going to do it with NN or similar in place, that they will do it without them in place.
Basically, if we trust them to be a watchdog, great. If we don't trust them to be the watchdog, then whether we let them be or not, they are going to do what they are going to do.
We aren't changing what a corrupt government CAN do, we are simply creating a law to make it accountable for what it MUST do.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
And since these kinds of laws don't give any power to censor or spy.... one has to assume that if the gov't is going to do it with NN or similar in place, that they will do it without them in place.
Basically, if we trust them to be a watchdog, great. If we don't trust them to be the watchdog, then whether we let them be or not, they are going to do what they are going to do.
We aren't changing what a corrupt government CAN do, we are simply creating a law to make it accountable for what it MUST do.
But NN wasn't to hold the government accountable. It was to hold the corporations accountable. Our 1st amendment rights by the constitution is to hold the government at bay, but we see how well that is holding up.
-
@momurda said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dafyre Seriously, another one. Ok, phone companies have been under Title II for nearly a century. Where is the rampant censorship from the FCC on your phone calls? Show me one example of the FCC interfering with your phone calls maliciously in the last century. There is none, just like classifiying ISPs Title II would lead to none.
That (or something similar to it) was mentioned by the "fathers of the internet" in that a user who goes to google.com no more chooses if the content is delivered across an individual network or CDN, they simply want to go to google.com.
Just like a person who calls a telephone number from their home phone has no choice in the path to getting their call to the number they want.
-
@nerdydad said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
And since these kinds of laws don't give any power to censor or spy.... one has to assume that if the gov't is going to do it with NN or similar in place, that they will do it without them in place.
Basically, if we trust them to be a watchdog, great. If we don't trust them to be the watchdog, then whether we let them be or not, they are going to do what they are going to do.
We aren't changing what a corrupt government CAN do, we are simply creating a law to make it accountable for what it MUST do.
But NN wasn't to hold the government accountable. It was to hold the corporations accountable. Our 1st amendment rights by the constitution is to hold the government at bay, but we see how well that is holding up.
This isn't about keeping corporations at bay though. It's about the government doing the Job "we the people" are telling it to do.
Which is to control how we are billed for our internet, and what is and isn't acceptable to us, the people.
-
@nerdydad said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
And since these kinds of laws don't give any power to censor or spy.... one has to assume that if the gov't is going to do it with NN or similar in place, that they will do it without them in place.
Basically, if we trust them to be a watchdog, great. If we don't trust them to be the watchdog, then whether we let them be or not, they are going to do what they are going to do.
We aren't changing what a corrupt government CAN do, we are simply creating a law to make it accountable for what it MUST do.
But NN wasn't to hold the government accountable.
Right, so NN doesn't have any negatives. It's not about the government, so all this fear of the government in relation to it is misplaced.
-
I would like the Anti NN people to show an example of FCC abuse or censorship of phone calls during your lifetime, your parent's lifetime, your grandparent's lifetime.
@bigbear @dafyre @PenguinWrangler
Just one please.
If you cant do that, youre making your decision based on some vague fear, and as you should know, Fear is the Mindkiller. It prevents you from making rational decisions. -
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@nerdydad said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
And since these kinds of laws don't give any power to censor or spy.... one has to assume that if the gov't is going to do it with NN or similar in place, that they will do it without them in place.
Basically, if we trust them to be a watchdog, great. If we don't trust them to be the watchdog, then whether we let them be or not, they are going to do what they are going to do.
We aren't changing what a corrupt government CAN do, we are simply creating a law to make it accountable for what it MUST do.
But NN wasn't to hold the government accountable.
Right, so NN doesn't have any negatives. It's not about the government, so all this fear of the government in relation to it is misplaced.
I agree with that. NN wasn't targeted at the government. Who is supposed to keep the government in check? We the people. NN was supposed to keep the ISPs in check.
-
@nerdydad said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@nerdydad said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
And since these kinds of laws don't give any power to censor or spy.... one has to assume that if the gov't is going to do it with NN or similar in place, that they will do it without them in place.
Basically, if we trust them to be a watchdog, great. If we don't trust them to be the watchdog, then whether we let them be or not, they are going to do what they are going to do.
We aren't changing what a corrupt government CAN do, we are simply creating a law to make it accountable for what it MUST do.
But NN wasn't to hold the government accountable.
Right, so NN doesn't have any negatives. It's not about the government, so all this fear of the government in relation to it is misplaced.
I agree with that. NN wasn't targeted at the government. Who is supposed to keep the government in check? We the people. NN was supposed to keep the ISPs in check.
Right, so without NN, there is no one watching the ISPs, and no one supposed to watch them. So we have a major problem.
-
Did they throttle my ML traffic? It feels like it just got quiet.
-
Friday afternoon, i think people are drinking or eating. I am leaving work to do that right now.
-
@momurda said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
I would like the Anti NN people to show an example of FCC abuse or censorship of phone calls during your lifetime, your parent's lifetime, your grandparent's lifetime.
@bigbear @dafyre @PenguinWrangler
Just one please.
If you cant do that, youre making your decision based on some vague fear, and as you should know, Fear is the Mindkiller. It prevents you from making rational decisions.Have no idea who is saying whatever you are saying, everyone seems to be picking talking points and working backwards from there.
This is how I directly experienced the debate and sudden escalation regarding Net Neutrality and De-Regulation working in the ISP world. Not a well thought out essay,just honest things I remember and thought about over the years.
-
2000 to 2010 - The FCC and Government has fucked us for years with the very things people here complain about that cause of lack of options and competition.There is a general interest in a Net Neutrality concept that has a lot of pro's and cons, but also a greater interest in getting Fiber speeds out there and getting rid of the regulation that are making it impossible or to bureaucratic to accomplish.
-
2010-2013 The government continues to resist de-regulation, so we still have limited local ISP options and legacy easements that keep very small players from growing into larger players. Obama somewhere along the way half-handedely pushed a couple laws through that Wheeler struck down, which shocked everyone in Wheelers own political camp. So then there was a sudden race to design and cram regulation into law begins.
-
2013-2016 Because the government treats the ISP market this way they have big internet companies doing scrupulous bullshit and rather than prosecute the FCC decides to take control of the internet and to declare it a public utility instead of getting the hell out of the way. Suddenly the whole country, who has not a clue what they are cheering about, is snowed into thinking the FCC is the hero they had been waiting for. Whatever, this law changes nothing. Now everyone can start paying and reporting to the FCC, oh yeah and the FTC no longer can offer consumer protections and data privacy oversight for end users because NN strips them of that. And guess what, no one new is assigned to do it either.
Google lobbyist heavily promotes the current "NN" law. In this time frame Google privacy czar abruptly resigns with no explanation.
- 2016 to 2017 Literally nothing changes, netflix is still throttled by big ISP's and Netflix is still paying millions per months in tarriffs to last mile providers. Everyone is paying and reporting to the FCC who is not actually monitoring or taking any action (and its forms, easy enough to lie on those).
2017 - Well meaning citizens who believe everything they hear find out something they MIGHT have heard of called "NET NEUTRALITY" is at risk. A law that has no impact on the rest of the world, but damn it if the world isnt about to burn. Oh and suddenly everyone who has never filled out or even read a single FCC form is a legal telecom scholar.
People are up in arms about all the bad things that "could happen" and laughing at everyone who is countering with "well here are all the bad things that could happen if we don't" saying that WE are afraid??
EDIT: Probably no one will read the whole post, or most of what I have posted. I am just sharing my honest thoughts and recollections here. I am open to changing my mind, I am not a telecom lawyer and I am just recounting things as I recall them from my little perch watching the world.
-
-
@bigbear That's actually a good overview. I really wish real competition could exist in the market, but most of the country is stuck in a dualopoly. The patchwork of regulations really doesn't help, as Google Fiber has proven of late.
-
@travisdh1 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear That's actually a good overview. I really wish real competition could exist in the market, but most of the country is stuck in a dualopoly. The patchwork of regulations really doesn't help, as Google Fiber has proven of late.
Yeah I agree, I think heading that direction and legislating based on actual abuses, when I watch this guy talk he just sounds.. like he is right. Specific to the conversation here check this interview from 3:30 on.
And go to 5:01 to have your questions answered about "throttling"
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@momurda said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
I would like the Anti NN people to show an example of FCC abuse or censorship of phone calls during your lifetime, your parent's lifetime, your grandparent's lifetime.
@bigbear @dafyre @PenguinWrangler
Just one please.
If you cant do that, youre making your decision based on some vague fear, and as you should know, Fear is the Mindkiller. It prevents you from making rational decisions.Have no idea who is saying whatever you are saying, everyone seems to be picking talking points and working backwards from there.
This is how I directly experienced the debate and sudden escalation regarding Net Neutrality and De-Regulation working in the ISP world. Not a well thought out essay,just honest things I remember and thought about over the years.
-
2000 to 2010 - The FCC and Government has fucked us for years with the very things people here complain about that cause of lack of options and competition.There is a general interest in a Net Neutrality concept that has a lot of pro's and cons, but also a greater interest in getting Fiber speeds out there and getting rid of the regulation that are making it impossible or to bureaucratic to accomplish.
-
2010-2013 The government continues to resist de-regulation, so we still have limited local ISP options and legacy easements that keep very small players from growing into larger players. Obama somewhere along the way half-handedely pushed a couple laws through that Wheeler struck down, which shocked everyone in Wheelers own political camp. So then there was a sudden race to design and cram regulation into law begins.
-
2013-2016 Because the government treats the ISP market this way they have big internet companies doing scrupulous bullshit and rather than prosecute the FCC decides to take control of the internet and to declare it a public utility instead of getting the hell out of the way. Suddenly the whole country, who has not a clue what they are cheering about, is snowed into thinking the FCC is the hero they had been waiting for. Whatever, this law changes nothing. Now everyone can start paying and reporting to the FCC, oh yeah and the FTC no longer can offer consumer protections and data privacy oversight for end users because NN strips them of that. And guess what, no one new is assigned to do it either.
Google lobbyist heavily promotes the current "NN" law. In this time frame Google privacy czar abruptly resigns with no explanation.
- 2016 to 2017 Literally nothing changes, netflix is still throttled by big ISP's and Netflix is still paying millions per months in tarriffs to last mile providers. Everyone is paying and reporting to the FCC who is not actually monitoring or taking any action (and its forms, easy enough to lie on those).
2017 - Well meaning citizens who believe everything they hear find out something they MIGHT have heard of called "NET NEUTRALITY" is at risk. A law that has no impact on the rest of the world, but damn it if the world isnt about to burn. Oh and suddenly everyone who has never filled out or even read a single FCC form is a legal telecom scholar.
People are up in arms about all the bad things that "could happen" and laughing at everyone who is countering with "well here are all the bad things that could happen if we don't" saying that WE are afraid??
EDIT: Probably no one will read the whole post, or most of what I have posted. I am just sharing my honest thoughts and recollections here. I am open to changing my mind, I am not a telecom lawyer and I am just recounting things as I recall them from my little perch watching the world.
Problem is, this doesn't track the discussion and is really just a distraction. Why are we talking about competition? Why are we talking about what companies want? Why are we talking about how the current law hasn't been used?
These things are all distractions... smoke and mirrors, to get us to focus on things that are not NN instead of NN itself. I don't understand what makes any of this relevant to this specific issue.
-
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@travisdh1 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear That's actually a good overview. I really wish real competition could exist in the market, but most of the country is stuck in a dualopoly. The patchwork of regulations really doesn't help, as Google Fiber has proven of late.
Yeah I agree, I think heading that direction and legislating based on actual abuses, when I watch this guy talk he just sounds.. like he is right. Specific to the conversation here check this interview from 3:30 on.
And go to 5:01 to have your questions answered about "throttling"
OMG, you watched what he said here, and you think he's okay? Holy crap, this video is terrifying. He's all about business developement and doesn't care at all about protecting the citizens. This is exactly what is bad about his plans and what he wants.
They even gave examples of real problems and he just flatly doesn't care.
-
Oh and he just pulled out the "competition" distraction.
Yup, this solidified it further, NN is absolutely needed and AP has no intention of protecting the US from companies. He's sold us out.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Oh and he just pulled out the "competition" distraction.
Yup, this solidified it further, NN is absolutely needed and AP has no intention of protecting the US from companies. He's sold us out.
I am going to start referring to this as the Open Internet Order, not NN. I support NN but do not believe the OIO was comprehensive enough to impact the actual issues everyone is worried about.
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1_Rcd.pdf
And in case anyone has had a hard time find it, see the link above. So anyone who wants to tell me what you THINK the Open Internet Order did for you I would like to check out what the actual law says.
The prominent issue everyone is talking about is throttling of services, which could be applied to the user but is generally applied at interconnect to limit a network or services speed.
Regarding throttling and despite HBO John Oliver's claims, the law DOES NOT prohibit throttling at the interconnection level. So does not eliminate your theoretical fear of Comcast screwing Netflix in an anticompetitive measure to promote its own content.
Straight from Page 10¶ 30
30. But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to interconnection. Three factors
are critical in informing this approach to interconnection. First, the nature of Internet traffic, driven by
massive consumption of video, has challenged traditional arrangements—placing more emphasis on the
use of CDNs or even direct connections between content providers (like Netflix or Google) and last-mile
broadband providers. Second, it is clear that consumers have been subject to degradation resulting from commercial disagreements,28 perhaps most notably in a series of disputes between Netflix and large last mile broadband providers. But, third, the causes of past disruption and—just as importantly—the
potential for future degradation through interconnection disputes—are reflected in very different
narratives in the record.EDIT:
Also... The Open Internet Order does not prevent Comcast from requiring payment to send traffic to their networks; it only puts ISPs under the general rules of Title II where they FCC would decide on a case by case basis what to do. So basically, it depends on how well the lobbyists work over politicians.
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Oh and he just pulled out the "competition" distraction.
Yup, this solidified it further, NN is absolutely needed and AP has no intention of protecting the US from companies. He's sold us out.
I am going to start referring to this as the Open Internet Order, not NN. I support NN but do not believe the OIO was comprehensive enough to impact the actual issues everyone is worried about.
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1_Rcd.pdf
And in case anyone has had a hard time find it, see the link above. So anyone who wants to tell me what you THINK the Open Internet Order did for you I would like to check out what the actual law says.
The prominent issue everyone is talking about is throttling of services, which could be applied to the user but is generally applied at interconnect to limit a network or services speed.
Regarding throttling and despite HBO John Oliver's claims, the law DOES NOT prohibit throttling at the interconnection level. So does not eliminate your theoretical fear of Comcast screwing Netflix in an anticompetitive measure to promote its own content.
Straight from Page 10¶ 30
30. But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to interconnection. Three factors
are critical in informing this approach to interconnection. First, the nature of Internet traffic, driven by
massive consumption of video, has challenged traditional arrangements—placing more emphasis on the
use of CDNs or even direct connections between content providers (like Netflix or Google) and last-mile
broadband providers. Second, it is clear that consumers have been subject to degradation resulting from commercial disagreements,28 perhaps most notably in a series of disputes between Netflix and large last mile broadband providers. But, third, the causes of past disruption and—just as importantly—the
potential for future degradation through interconnection disputes—are reflected in very different
narratives in the record.EDIT:
Also... The Open Internet Order does not prevent Comcast from requiring payment to send traffic to their networks; it only puts ISPs under the general rules of Title II where they FCC would decide on a case by case basis what to did. So basically, it depends on how well the lobbyists work over politicians.
So if the assessment is that existing NN does not go far enough, great, I'm on board 100%. I think that true neutrality needs to be codified in law, be way more clear and broad than it is today, and that the government needs to oversee it proactively, and that the laws need give the gov't agencies real "teeth" to go after violatoes and heavy incentive to do so very aggressively - I fully believe this should be a criminal, not civil, offense as it involves using government granted utility monopolies to influence our democratic system so violators should see jail time, not fines.
But, given all that, how does moving away from that, help?
