thats like cutting all the tree on the earth. you would need those trees after a while, not the best example but you know what i mean.
its sad but we have become addicted to the internet.
Last edited by Flame,
F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules on the USA
- Thread starter pustal
- Start date
- Views 12,272
- Replies 180
- Likes 7
thats like cutting all the tree on the earth. you would need those trees after a while, not the best example but you know what i mean.
its sad but we have become addicted to the internet.
People have complained which is why we went to Title II in the first place.
Going to public places isn't convenient since internet is part of people lives.
Last edited by SG854,
On top of that, there's nothing guaranteeing that the free WiFi wouldn't be hosted by the same provider
There's also the issue of the security of free Wi-Fi, restrictions and terms of use, speed, etc. I doubt Starbucks or the library are gonna let you download your 30 GB Steam games.
Not sure if this was shared already, but apparently the FCC made fraudulent comments in favor of repealing Net Neutrality under various pseudonyms, including one that belonged to a dead person...
https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/tweet-net-neutrality-fake-comments/
https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/tweet-net-neutrality-fake-comments/
Ya, it was mentioned in the thread @Chary made. Bots and dead people in favor of repeal.Not sure if this was shared already, but apparently the FCC made fraudulent comments in favor of repealing Net Neutrality under various pseudonyms, including one that belonged to a dead person...
https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/tweet-net-neutrality-fake-comments/
Now that Pai is the chairman of the FCC, he also allowing ISP's ignore Net Neutrality regulations.
Last edited by SG854,
It's unlikely to have a huge effect on the rest of the world. Netflix et al can put servers in other countries, it would surprise me if they didn't do that already.
I don't think it makes a huge difference to the world, I can see how it could affect US customers. However it might not be so bad long term.
Net neutrality doesn't fix the real problems with US ISP's, what you need is competition. If comcast slowed down netflix or amazon and you could switch to a competitor who doesn't then they'll stop doing it. But at the moment there is no real push to allow competition, with most states passing laws that effectively forbid it. To be able to get competition, you need the ISP monopoly to fail big time. Short term pain for long term gain.
I think it would be a mistake to fight for the neutrality laws to be retained or reapplied, you want their next move to be enforced competition.
Competition works much better in other countries, where you might have a choice of a dozen providers. Some of them are essentially reselling the same product, but some are offering unique products. You get some providers who throttle you if you are constantly torrenting, others just let you use all the local bandwidth.
Last edited by smf,
There's not competition in monopolies. ISP's already admitted to not service the same areas. There's actually a video of verizon or cox i don't remember which actually saying this. And I don't have to watch a video to know that my choice of isp is either comcast or slow ass at&t dsl.
Hmm...I'm sort of in doubt, here. I've made some posts as to why I'm in favor of net neutrality, and I stand by that. The fact that now dead people and bots were "advocating" against net neutrality, and Ajit Pai making a cringe worthy video* doesn't help.
...and then a youtuber whom I trust and brings rational arguments in the cases he makes is (cautiously) optimistic on this deal. It's worth a watch. There are things in it I'm very skeptical about, but despite all of what's been said thus far, I find this the most insightful comment on the matter as of yet. And this is despite my own opinion (okay, perhaps I should turn that around: I find people whom I disagree with but can be civil usually interesting).
Oh, and...have you guys also seen "ads" like this:
(found here, so it's not even some shady darkweb or warez site)
This sort of stuff bothers me, even though I agree with the initial goal. This is playing into people's fears in an attempt to mobilize a mob. At no point ISP's were given permission to block certain web pages (or more correct: more so than they had before), so this whole thing would even be wrong if my ISP was located in the USA (which I'm not). In other words: this isn't an ad or a commercial, but blatant propaganda. And in the long run, that could even be worse (what if at some point the ISP's formally "agree" to never block sites? That whole rallied mob would dismantle in the belief that they've won, whereas said ISP's could still regulate the protocols to make money on the kinds of data).
*he pretty much assumes everyone worried about net neutrality is five years old
...and then a youtuber whom I trust and brings rational arguments in the cases he makes is (cautiously) optimistic on this deal. It's worth a watch. There are things in it I'm very skeptical about, but despite all of what's been said thus far, I find this the most insightful comment on the matter as of yet. And this is despite my own opinion (okay, perhaps I should turn that around: I find people whom I disagree with but can be civil usually interesting).
Oh, and...have you guys also seen "ads" like this:
(found here, so it's not even some shady darkweb or warez site)
This sort of stuff bothers me, even though I agree with the initial goal. This is playing into people's fears in an attempt to mobilize a mob. At no point ISP's were given permission to block certain web pages (or more correct: more so than they had before), so this whole thing would even be wrong if my ISP was located in the USA (which I'm not). In other words: this isn't an ad or a commercial, but blatant propaganda. And in the long run, that could even be worse (what if at some point the ISP's formally "agree" to never block sites? That whole rallied mob would dismantle in the belief that they've won, whereas said ISP's could still regulate the protocols to make money on the kinds of data).
*he pretty much assumes everyone worried about net neutrality is five years old
We are going back to Title 1 on this new deal. We had Net Neutrality under Title 1 since the 2000's. But Pai lied about us not having NN before 2015.
If we are still going to have Net Neutrality even going back to Title 1, don't you think you find that a bit suspicious? Whats the point of even switching Titles if we are still going to keep NN, there's no point in switching.
The internet wasn't fine under Title 1. There were many lawsuits happening. If you skip over to 24:44 on This Video you can see all the lawsuits that were happening in the 2000's under Title 1 because ISP's were breaking NN. That was until ISP's found a flaw under Title 1's classification that made it harder for them to enforce NN. And now the FCC couldn't enforce much under Title 1, not until they were classified as Title II Common Carriers. So this force them to reclassify ISP's under Title 2 so they can enforce anything.
Yes, there were successful lawsuits under Title 1 until ISP's found flaws. So we are not going back to 2000's to 2014 Title 1 NN under this new deal. We're going back to 2014-2015 NN Title 1 with the flaws now known to ISP's under this classification. Which will then make it harder for the FCC and FTC to enforce much even with all the pledges and NN rules.
Last edited by SG854,
If you read the new deal from Pai we're still going to keep Net Neutrality. But we're switching back to Title 1.
So no, Pai said we are not getting less regulation with his new deal. But theres also extra shit about the deal he's not telling you about.
It'll be like the stupid 3DS stability jokes but with Net Neutrality. We need to make it more Neutral by adding more Neutrality. Neutrality on top of Neutrality.
There is a huge flaw in @MaverickWellington argument. He/She said that under Title 2 they can still avoid the Common Carrier classification and thus avoid lawsuits.
But isn't that what this new bill from Pai is doing. By getting rid of Title II Common Carrier classification and going back to Title 1 and thus avoiding lawsuits.
Last edited by SG854,
I think his argument is that the voluntary participation and sections outlining penalties under the FTC would negate that issue. The problem is that participation is... well... voluntary, and the FTC doesn't actually have the authority to do what the proposition outlines (aka, afaik they don't actually have the ability to "sue an ISP into oblivion" when following Title I regulations)
It seems Comcast is already going back on their pledge promises the day Pai offered his proposal.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ity-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/
Many ISP's have broken NN multiple times in the past so I wouldn't be surprised if they followed suit.
I mean capitalism does exist and people can choose an ISP that is not screwing them over Under Title 1,
but capitalism also exists under Title 2 and you can still choose your ISP, so theres no point for going back to Title 1. Title 2 just gives that extra protection for people that don't have a choice in ISP's.
ISP's keep crushing the smaller guys so its a lot harder for Capitalism to take hold. We still have capitalism under Title 2 so why hasn't more ISP's come up? Or even under Title 1, which we were under for a lot longer. And not many sprung up. Under Title 2 capitalism can still happen, and at the same time protect people if not many ISP's come up.
I also noticed in Pai Plan it says "Information Service" and on Wikipedia it says "Information Providers" the wording is a bit different but they seem like the same Title 1 classification. And it also says restore the classification of Information Service in Pai's plan. So it does make it seem we are going back to how things were before, which would be Title 1.
Last edited by SG854,
It's not quite over yet, the changes will not go into effect for a little while from what I heard, and Congress can still reverse the decision through the CRA, which could possibly happen, so right now its important to contact your congressmen. The fight isn't over quite yet. But, in the case of every action against the repeal failing, it's hard to say what we can do. ISPs could easily block/throttle/charge more for VPNs, so a VPN might not work. Tor might work, but Tor isn't very fast and is not a very reliable solution. I'm not sure if or how an Independent ISP would work, or how practical it'd be. I think the best course of action right now would probably be to hope for the best, and to contact your congressmen if you can.
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
32GBs is the baseline for 4K video editing these days and lots of recommendations for 64GBs but for games 16,GBs is honestly plenty for a long time. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
Some sort of police thing going on near me lol "Get out of the car with your hands up and walk backwards towards us" over a loud speaker thing
-
-
like a 250 dollar kit back when DDR4 was Intel only
