nickb 7/12/2017 5:20 AM
Net Neutrality
I'm rather on a soap box here as this is something I feel is important - especially to non-profit forums and web-based educational / help sites such this, Khan Acadamy and stackexchnage.


This issue on the table is the proposed roll-back of the net neutrality rules. In 2015 the FCC decided that net neutrality was a good thing,now with the new legislation, they want to roll that back and to start to prioritize packets based on how much you pay for them.

More info here https://www.freepress.net/net-neutra...-need-know-now

Get lobbying https://www.battleforthenet.com/

Thanks for listening
 
SoulFetish 7/19/2017 9:17 PM
I'm glad you brought this up, Nick. One more example of a Presidential appointee... giving us the finger and implementing corporately funded policy changes. Dude, I don't even know where to begin with all this. Listening to Ajit Pai's reasoning for rolling back net neutrality regulations is like having someone piss on your leg and try and convince you it's rain. I mean, why the hell would comcast and verizon be spending 11M over the first half of 2017 to push this through, if they weren't planning on throttling competitors and filtering content??
Meanwhile, our president throws out crumbs of twitter obscenities like clockwork to keep the public in a state of offended hypnosis just long enough not to notice the reality of what's actually happening. From pulling out of the Paris agreement, net neutrality, travel bans, removing consumer student loan protections, ecologically irresponsible energy policy, to what looks like treason during the campaign. It is really discouraging.
(sorry, didn't mean to steer this off the rails)

Ask Netflix about Comcast's intentions!:
https://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-re...-with-comcast/

...and a brief history of violations:
https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/...-brief-history
 
The Dude 7/19/2017 9:54 PM
It's the Republican way. As long as the rich folk can afford internet access, f%$k everyone else.
 
Enzo 7/19/2017 10:11 PM
if they weren't planning on throttling competitors and filtering content??
I am not sure just where I sit on all this. But in industry there are parallels. I like to travel by train. PAssenger trains that go cross country with Amtrak run on the rails of freight railroads. Those railroads are required to allow this and charge reasonable rates to Amtrak. But their priorities are to their own freight traffic. So if an Amtrak train and a freight train arrive at a track at the same time, the freight train will get priority, and the Amtrak will languish behind the slow freight. I have been on trains thus delayed. What if Amtrak offered to pay them more money to get better access to track?

SO in the world of high speed data communication, would they not want to be able to offer better access for greater use? At Mouser, I can pay 50 cents for one part, or 25 cents if I buy 50 of them. If they receive an order for one and an order for 50 and they have exactly 50 in stock, should they be required to fill the one order leaving them to be unable to fill the 50, or could they satisfy the larger customer at the expense of denying the smaller? I don't think that is black and white. I am not taking their side so much as pointing out everything need not be a conspiracy
 
SoulFetish 7/20/2017 4:20 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Enzo View Post
I am not sure just where I sit on all this. But in industry there are parallels. I like to travel by train. PAssenger trains that go cross country with Amtrak run on the rails of freight railroads. Those railroads are required to allow this and charge reasonable rates to Amtrak. But their priorities are to their own freight traffic. So if an Amtrak train and a freight train arrive at a track at the same time, the freight train will get priority, and the Amtrak will languish behind the slow freight. I have been on trains thus delayed. What if Amtrak offered to pay them more money to get better access to track?

SO in the world of high speed data communication, would they not want to be able to offer better access for greater use? At Mouser, I can pay 50 cents for one part, or 25 cents if I buy 50 of them. If they receive an order for one and an order for 50 and they have exactly 50 in stock, should they be required to fill the one order leaving them to be unable to fill the 50, or could they satisfy the larger customer at the expense of denying the smaller? I don't think that is black and white. I am not taking their side so much as pointing out everything need not be a conspiracy
Someone needs to tell Enzo that commissioner Pai must've hacked his MEF account.
 
SoulFetish 7/20/2017 4:22 AM
Enzo, you make some interesting points. I want to think on them a bit, before I respond.
 
big_teee 7/20/2017 10:06 AM
I for one am for net neutrality.
IMO, it has nothing to with freight trains, or amtrac!
Everyone should have access to good fast internet!
If the data pipe is getting clogged because of streaming, build a bigger pipe.
That's why we need infrastructure in this country!
https://www.savetheinternet.com/blog...neutrality-now
The Open Internet: A Case for Net Neutrality
https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-yout...ty-protections
T
 
nickb 7/20/2017 11:09 AM
I'll simplify.

The big companies see an opportunity to make more money by charging for packet prioritization. That money comes from the companies that will benefit by being able to get on your screen quickly, advertisers spring to mind. In order for their profits not to be compromised they will pass the cost on to, ultimately, you. In other words you will be paying more to benefit Verizon and so on's coffers and in return you get more ads. On the other hand, sites such as this one that cant afford priority access will become slower, and yes, you are paying extra for for it. Still think not protecting neutrality it's a good idea?

I wrote to Marco Rubio and Ted Deutch. Rubio is clearly in favor of the change and responded with my disapproval. Deutech's response was rather non-committal.
 
bob p 7/20/2017 12:34 PM
I'd like free fast internet as much as the next guy. Who doesn't like a fee lunch? Everyone should have them!

But in a world where there are not unlimited resources, some sort of allocation of resources seems logical. The devil in the details is all about how resources are allocated. Because resources have value, and because people are inclined to consume to excess when resources are free, it makes sense for there to be some cost of consumption associated with them to facilitate rational allocation and to prevent abuse. It's unfortunate, but we don't live on the Starship Enterprise where there are unlimited resources available via a replicator so that everyone can have everything that he wants at no cost. In the real world, all resources are in finite supply, and supply-demand relationships shape the way we have to look at resources and value them.

I didn't think Enzo's train analogy was at all invalid. I liked it. If you want something special, what's wrong with you paying a premium for it? If you're the only person who benefits by obtaining a widget, then who should pay for it? Obviously nobody has more interest in obtaining the widget than the person who consumes it, so it only seems fair that the person who consumes the widget should be the one who pays for it. The same is true for any resource.

Right now I'm paying for "high speed Internet" and I notice that under the current paradigm of "neutrality" my connections suffer due to synchronous high bandwidth consumption by others. Sure, everything is fine during the daytime, but as soon as it becomes early evening, the "pipe" becomes "clogged" until midnight. Maybe the cause is server latency, maybe it's router congestion, but either way I notice that when it becomes early evening and people are banging on their Netflix and Youtube accounts, my connection slows to the point that surfing a plain old low-bandwidth site like this one suffers.

I like to think that the problem is caused by people who watch Youtube like gluttons, or by people who are excessively consuming Netflix. After all, streaming video takes a lot of bandwidth. More likely, though, is that most of our favorite text-based sites are co-hosted on server farms, and our favorite sites aren't paying as high a rate for low-latency service as are the video content providers. The result is that the servers at ginormous hosts like Akamai are already giving preferential treatment to their high paying customers because they are high paying customers. To test this theory, I built a web server with a RPi and hosted it on my own internet account. Zero latency for other people even during prime-time high bandwidth consumption hours. This suggests that server latency at host sites is contributing to the problem and that it's not solely an issue of limited bandwidth that can be fixed by a bigger pipe.

I'm not 100% sure whether the slow-response problem that I complain about in the evenings is one of server latency or of a network bottleneck. All that I can say is that like everyone else, I notice the latency problem and I don't like it. But I'm going to stop short of saying that everyone should have access to good fast internet, and if the data pipe is getting clogged because of streaming, then build a bigger pipe. The money required to build that pipe has to come from somewhere, and ultimately some of it is going to come out of my pocket. The question is whether I pay that cost in the form of higher taxes, or whether I pay that cost in the form of a subscription fee. Either way, I'm going to end up paying and I won't have a whole lot of choice about it.

On the subject of how the money comes out of my pocket, I'd rather have the option of choosing whether or not to pay a subscription fee, and what tier of service I want to pay for. At least in that model I have a choice not to pay for something I don't want. If the money comes out of my pocket via taxation, then I don't really have a choice -- I end up being forced to pay for something that I don't want. Somebody ends up sticking their hand into my pocket and taking money out, regardless of whether or not I consent.

If we want to provide free and fast internet for everyone by building a bigger pipe, that ends up costing me tax dollars that I'd prefer not to pay. My taxes are already high enough and I'd rather not pay more to get that big fat pipe so that everyone else can gobble up more free lunch. I'd rather have a pay-to-play paradigm where I can choose to buy only what I need to buy and not have to pay for anything more. I certainly don't want to contribute providing free unlimited bandwidth for everyone. I think that tax dollars could be better spent elsewhere.

Here's wild idea -- Maybe it makes sense to have the people who use the resources the most be the ones that pay for them, instead of making someone else foot the bill for expanding the pipe so that everyone is subsidized in their consumption of Netflix and Youtube. Of course this idea falls flat on it's face if our primary interest is getting something for nothing, with the expectation that it's always better for someone else to foot the bill.
 
g1 7/20/2017 12:35 PM
While I do see that there are valid points on both sides of this, I think it comes down to whether you consider net access like a public utility or not.
 
bob p 7/20/2017 12:39 PM
^^^ Good point. I don't know what public utilities are like where you live, but where I live I pay for my phone, natural gas, electric, and water service according to my level of consumption.

There are three sections on the bills: one is a flat base rate for monthly service, two is a rate-based charge for consumption of resources, and three is where I'm taxed.

For long distance phone calls I get charged by the minute; for water, I get charged in 1000 gallon increments; for electricity I pay by the kilowatt-hour; and for natural gas I pay by the number of therms I have consumed.

I can see a pay-to-play argument for the net, especially if it's treated as a public utility.
 
SoulFetish 7/20/2017 2:33 PM
G1, the point you bring up is central to the debate. At this point, internet access has become a utility.
Because it has grown into a utility that relies on a a physical network infrastructure (for the most part), we can draw parallels to the 100 years or so of history in telecom antitrust law for analysis. In my view, Net Neutrality regulations "Title II", was the response to a trend in unfair business practices which really can only be leveraged by a monopoly holder.
Bob P, right now, the paying consumer dictates content under Neutrality regulations. Which seems to be what you are advocating for. By deregulating Neutrality, you as a paying customer will have much less power over what gets through, in speed and content.
Lets say you hate youtube bandwidth horders- if google enters into a business contract with comcast, they get to allocate what ever percentage of YOUR bandwidth that they want for youtube, regardless of whether you stream it or not. You will still have to pay for the "space" occupied by youtube content and what ever you wanted high speed service for gets throttled to a trickle or barred completely from access. That is what is at stake here.
 
bob p 7/20/2017 3:28 PM
If my ISP decides to enter a third party agreement with someone else and I don't like how that agreement effects me, it's not as if I'm left without options. I can shop elsewhere as long as the markets are open, free and competitive. I can even completely opt out of using Youtube and Netflix, or owning a "smart" device if that option suits me.

What I don't like happening is when I opt out of all three of those services, and I still have the taxes that support those services being tagged onto my land-line my telephone bill. At present my land-line telephone bill is comprised of 60% basic telephone service and 40% taxes ... taxes that I'm paying to support parasites. It would be much more fair if the cost of using those services were actually being paid by the people who use them instead of apportioning the cost among people who don't use them.

If I used those services and my ISP charged me by the byte then I would quickly learn that hoarding becomes expensive enough that I would have to make a decision about whether or not the bandwidth that I'm consuming via Youtube and Netflix is worth the money I'm spending. If it's not, then my monthly bill will provide me with incentive to regulate my own bandwidth consumption.

The problem comes along when there is a disconnect between behavior and the cost of that behavior. When the bandwidth hog pays the same price as a low-impact user and the low-impact user gets squeezed as the hog fills up the "neutral" pipe. That hardly seems fair.

Quality of Service is a double-edged sword. Video streamers expect to watch video without buffering. Sometimes they consume the whole pipe in doing that, causing others to suffer. In contrast, transferring a text page like this one consumes virtually no bandwidth. A page of text is literally a drop in the bucket compared to streaming video. Maybe a bandwidth limit isn't such a bad idea -- though it sure won't appeal to the worst of the bandwidth hogs.

Bandwidth is a commodity like everything else. I don't see anything wrong with asking people to pay for how much they actually use. If we did that, then small time users would pay small bills and big time users would pay big bills. And if someone doesn't like how much their usage is costing them, then it's their responsibility to regulate their own behavior or to pay the price for failure to do so. Usage then reaches a simple supply-demand equilibrium that's dictated by a free market. Personally, I think that a free market for data is a good thing. The only people that seem to be against a free market are the people who want to get something for nothing. Usually those people are high bandwidth consumers who have grown accustomed to having low bandwidth consumers subsidize their activities when everyone pays a flat rate.
 
nickb 7/20/2017 3:39 PM
Bob, your point is well made but fundamentally I don't see it as an issue of paying for bandwidth. These providers want to dispense with neutrality because they will make more money, not because it's fairer or is going to improve your service. Do you think it's OK then for valuable but non-profit educational organizations to be pushed to the back of the bandwidth queue? This will hurt both those organizations and those who use them

Paying a subscription fee for a better service as a consumer is a different matter altogether and is a different discussion.
 
bob p 7/20/2017 4:32 PM
Quote Originally Posted by nickb View Post
Do you think it's OK then for valuable but non-profit educational organizations to be pushed to the back of the bandwidth queue? This will hurt both those organizations and those who use them
It's interesting that you'd ask me that question, as I donate my service as an executive officer for a 501(c)(3) publicly funded educational charity. I see that you're in the UK and I'm guessing that you're not familiar with what I'm talking about. In the USA a 501(c)(3) entity is a public charity that derives no less than 1/3 of it's donated revenue from a fairly broad base of public support.

What is a 501(c)(3)

No, I wouldn't want us to be pushed to the back of the bandwidth queue, but to be fair, we have no business being at the front of the queue either. When it comes to buying bandwidth we're paying customers just like everyone else and just because a we're a registered non-profit doesn't mean that we are "special" or privileged in some way that should allow us to leap-frog over someone else in the queue. We don't get free office supplies at the office supply store. We don't get free utilities. We pay for everything that we consume, just like everyone else. And hopefully there's enough money left over after operating expenses for us to complete our mission. I don't believe in special treatment for special people. Because we're no different than anyone else when it comes to bandwidth usage, we pay for our internet service just like everyone else and don't have any business being in any position in the queue other than the position that we're paying to occupy.

For a charity to be a charity, it has to be funded by voluntary contributions. It's not really a charity if people are compelled to contribute, either in the form of compulsory donations (ie: funding through taxation) or being provided a special place in a queue through a government action.

I understand that that might sound strange to you, but that's because I believe there's a fundamental difference between charities that are supported by individual contributions, where individual members of society decide whether or not we are worthy and vote with their wallet, vs. a charity that automatically gets afforded special privileges and support by mandate, where the decision about funding is made by an administrative edict and money gets taken from taxpayers for involuntary redistribution. For a charity to be a true charity, it has to be funded by the generosity of people who give away their own money with the charitable intent to do good. I don't believe that we should get special treatment just because we're a charity. We're already afforded tax-exempt status and that gives us an advantage that real people who send us their money don't have.

I don't buy into the charities will suffer argument. Our charity will not suffer if net neutrality changes. I think bringing charities into the discussion amounts to a red herring argument. In the big scheme of things, the debate about net neutrality is not about supporting or not supporting charities.
 
The Dude 7/20/2017 4:59 PM
One of the larger issues is the potential for glorified censorship. Someone other than yourself is going to be deciding bandwidth allocation. For instance, let's say a politician named "Chump" is running for election or reelection. He has large donor, let's call them "Cock Brothers" for example, who might be invested in a service provider. Let's call them "Cobcast" for example. Then, there is a campaign competitor named "Binton" and multiple other "anti-Chump" websites. What is the likelihood or at least possibility that Cobcast will put any Binton related sites at the end of the pack when it comes to bandwidth. They could, in theory, make them so hard to get to that users give up trying. Or what if a large chain store like "Ballmart" can afford the payola to have more bandwidth than your neighbor Joe's little grocery store's website. I see the end of net neutrality as just another way the rich and powerful can/will control the less fortunate. It's a slope to the propaganda machine that other countries ruled by dictators use. My examples here may or may not be exaggerated. But, hopefully, the point is made. There would almost certainly be less obvious abuses of this power. My opinion is that the freedom of expression and right of people to view what they want when they want far outweighs any sort of preferential pricing.
 
nickb 7/20/2017 5:04 PM
Quote Originally Posted by bob p View Post
I
No, I wouldn't want us to be pushed to the back of the bandwidth queue, but to be fair, we have no business being at the front of the queue either.
..err... so you do support neurtrality then

Acutally, I am a US citizen and do know something about 501(c), not as much as you do naturally. And quite a few other IRS rules, sadly. That's why I could contact my home State's senators.

Honestly I'm surprised, given your laudable contribution of your time, that you don't want to fight that corner a bit harder. You seem to be saying that it's OK for your charity to pay for better access, and to be clear we are talking about getting your web site in front of people which I presume has a direct effect on contributions and getting your mesage out. I wonder if those who contribute to it might be dissapointed by your postion.

I certainly didn't throw it out as a red herring. I have a genuine concern that the many forums, small businesses, charities, educational sites will be sidelined by the cash push of the big commericials.
 
SoulFetish 7/20/2017 5:12 PM
Bob, which charity? If you dont mind me asking
 
SoulFetish 7/20/2017 5:13 PM
Nick, you were from Florida once upon a time, no?
 
bob p 7/20/2017 5:34 PM
Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
One of the larger issues is the potential for glorified censorship. Someone other than yourself is going to be deciding bandwidth allocation...
That's as good an argument as I've heard for getting the government out of the picture. Unfortunately, when anyone calls for regulation what they're really asking for is government oversight and control. The result is more input and more control on the part of a government bureaucracy. We've already got government involvement in 99.99% of our daily activities. Some people want there to be more government responsibility in our lives. Some people want less.

I'm 100% with you WRT freedom of expression and freedom of speech. It's a basic human need and a fundamental right. People have the right to say what they like. But I'll stop short of saying that we have to provide anyone with the vehicle to propagate their opinions. Freedom of speech requires that you have the freedom to express your ideas, but it falls short of requiring anyone to provide you with a means of disseminating your ideas. Free speech gives you a stump to stand on, it doesn't mean that you are provided with media to spread your ideas. That's what the basement printing press is for.

When freedom of speech is supported directly or indirectly through taxation, regulation or any other form of government interference, it's not really free speech. When ideas expressed via a vehicle that is regulated by government become too extreme, someone can choose to shut you down. If anyone wants freedom of speech, IMO they're being dumb if they look for a government controlled dissemination medium as their medium of expression. What you really want is a medium that is not controlled in any way by any government.

I think you make, perhaps without intent, a great argument for why the government needs to stay out of the data transmission market. Personally, I think government has grown to a big enough size that they already have their fingers in every aspect of our lives. I'm not eager to provide an administrator with the prerogative to make even more administrative decisions that effect the transmission of thought. My preference is for less government involvement, not more.

If we're concerned about the rich controlling the poor -- and that is a valid point -- it only takes a moment to flip the big red switch and to stop sending them your money.
 
Enzo 7/20/2017 5:38 PM
I see a lot of world is going to end on both sides here, but what I don;t see is practical numbers. Like the discussion of an amp circuit where we change the low end rolloff at the input stage, and the differnce between the choices is either 5Hz or 4Hz. Well arguably 4Hz is wider bandwidth and somehow "better", but in terms of guitar, meaningless. SO if this internet thing is implemented, exactly what would it do to my surfing this web page? How about my shopping at Mousre, or receiving email? Or even the closer comparison watching You tube? if it means my forum loads 2.6 seconds slower, I will never notice. If it means come back later and I might get through, that is a problem.

I see mentions of utilities. Utilities have tiered rates already. My electricity comes at 10 cents a kwh at light use, and some weird schedule of fractional cents up to a couple thousand kwh. In any case, the General Motors plant in town certainly pays a lot less for their consumption per unit. Their total bill is of course a staggering amount higher. Even public utilities. if I mail a letter (remember those?) a stamp costs me almost 50 cents. If I mail out 10,000 ad letters, I pay a much lower bulk rate.
 
The Dude 7/20/2017 5:45 PM
Quote Originally Posted by bob p View Post
...... I'll stop short of saying that we have to provide anyone with the vehicle to propagate their opinions. Freedom of speech requires that you have the freedom to express your ideas, but it falls short of requiring anyone to provide you with a means of disseminating your ideas. Free speech gives you a stump to stand on, it doesn't mean that you are provided with media to spread your ideas.....
That is precisely my point. Why should one group of people (the rich and powerful) be given a vehicle to disseminate their ideas and not the rest? It's a recipe for disaster. I don't see it as any more regulatory than the government stepping in to break up a monopoly. I understand your "less government" philosophy, but there are times when it is necessary for the government to step in for the common good. It's part of the government's job to do so. IMO, this is one of those times.
 
The Dude 7/20/2017 5:57 PM
Quote Originally Posted by Enzo View Post
I see a lot of world is going to end on both sides here, but what I don;t see is practical numbers. Like the discussion of an amp circuit where we change the low end rolloff at the input stage, and the differnce between the choices is either 5Hz or 4Hz. Well arguably 4Hz is wider bandwidth and somehow "better", but in terms of guitar, meaningless. SO if this internet thing is implemented, exactly what would it do to my surfing this web page? How about my shopping at Mousre, or receiving email? Or even the closer comparison watching You tube? if it means my forum loads 2.6 seconds slower, I will never notice. If it means come back later and I might get through, that is a problem......
This is a repost of the link SoulFetish posted in #2. These are all violations of Net Neutrality. If you want to see a small sample of "practical data", imagine those things not being illegal. IMO, not having the law allows providers way too much levity.

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/...-brief-history
 
bob p 7/20/2017 6:05 PM
Quote Originally Posted by nickb View Post
..err... so you do support neurtrality then
Yes or no, depending on how it actually gets defined. The devil is in the details, and those details could change my opinion.

Acutally, I am a US citizen and do know something about 501(c), not as much as you do naturally. And quite a few other IRS rules, sadly. That's why I could contact my home State's senators.
I was wondering how you got a response from Rubio, given that you're located in the UK. Every time that I've written to any legislator because they're on a specific committee, they always respond that I can go pound sand because I'm not one of their constituents. They like to be on committees so that they can control policy, but they like to be able to dodge input from everyone they can. If you're not from their state then they ignore your letter. Personally, I think that when a legislator gets appointed to a committee then they should have to answer to everyone they represent, not just their pool of electors. Unfortunately they don't see it that way.

Honestly I'm surprised, given your laudable contribution of your time, that you don't want to fight that corner a bit harder. You seem to be saying that it's OK for your charity to pay for better access, and to be clear we are talking about getting your web site in front of people which I presume has a direct effect on contributions and getting your mesage out. I wonder if those who contribute to it might be dissapointed by your postion.
I'm not sure exactly what we're talking about in terms of getting the web site in front of people. Are we talking page load speed? Being indexed in search engines?

When a charity becomes big enough peoples' jobs end up being compartmentalized. Because I'm not in fundraising I am insulated from that aspect of things. My understanding is that the fundraising people, for whatever reason, don't rely heavily on an internet presence. The money comes from other activities, primarily from events that provide interaction with people. My title is Financial Secretary. The treasurer is responsible for controlling the money once we have it and paying bills. My job is to oversee the treasurer's activities by keeping the books, creating financial reports, and preparing the books for the audit committee. It's a purely administrative task that's far removed from the "trenches" where most of the real work gets done.

One thing that I feel very strongly about is that it's essential for charities to maintain complete independence from government. If and when you accept money from government, you're forced to play by a special set of rules. Government money comes with strings attached that are intended to shape a charity's behavior. We don't want the strings so we don't take any government money. Another part of independent funding that's essential is that people are allowed to support charities that they believe in, and people are free to choose to deny support to charities that they do not believe in. By definition, that means that a charity has to be funded by voluntary donations from people, not through compulsory wealth redistribution (forced donation through tax collection and government support of charities). I for one, would definitely not want to support a charity that supports educating the public on the beauty of internet kittens, and I would not want them to be provided preferential bandwidth. I'm not a fan of internet kittens, don't want to support them, would prefer that such a charity did not exist, to hell with their bandwidth needs. Granted that's an extreme example, but it makes the point that there are lots of charities out there, some of which an individual might prefer not to support. The choice to support or not support goes away as soon as we have government involvement in any way.

[IMG]http://music-electronics-forum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=44150&d=1500595337[/IMG]
 
bob p 7/20/2017 6:21 PM
Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
That is precisely my point. Why should one group of people (the rich and powerful) be given a vehicle to disseminate their ideas and not the rest?
I'm not understanding how the rich and powerful were given the vehicle. The obvious, albeit unpopular response, is that they have access to the vehicle that you and I don't have access to because they paid for it and we didn't. I hate to say that, because I'm in agreement with you that rich and powerful people already control the media and I hate it -- but the idea that the media should be given to anyone like you or me solely because we are not rich and powerful is a Marxist idea that I don't subscribe to. We don't have a right to free access. What we do have the right to do is to ignore their media and to speak against it, like we're doing here.

It's a recipe for disaster. I don't see it as any more regulatory than the government stepping in to break up a monopoly. I understand your "less government" philosophy, but there are times when it is necessary for the government to step in for the common good. It's part of the government's job to do so. IMO, this is one of those times.
Another option would be for people to educate themselves that they're wiser to ignore the media and turn off the television rather than to keep watching it. I live by that idea. If it weren't for the Cubs games I wouldn't even own a TV.

Looking at that post about net neutrality offenses, I realize that I've been bitten by them. I remember when my ISP created a policy of dropping any packets related to file sharing. They didn't want their network bandwidth to be consumed by illegal file sharing, so they started filtering packets. People responded by encrypting their data. At the network level, once data becomes encrypted it becomes quite difficult for any ISP relaying the data to determine exactly what it's relaying, and their QoS routing paradigms fail. Problem solved.
 
nickb 7/21/2017 12:44 AM
Bringing out the kittens was underhanded
 
Thoriated Tungsten 7/21/2017 3:26 AM
Hello everyone,

Have been lurking for a bit, but had to register to comment on this. My excuse is that my guitar is at my local luthier to get a proper setup in order to help my newbie playing as much as possible. So here goes.

We had the net neutrality debate here in the EU a few years ago or rather, the claims of the ISPs were quickly debunked and laughed out of existence. Subsequently net neutrality was passed as law in the EU parliament and later ratified as the land of the law in the various EU countries.

Basically you are all being lied to. There is no bandwidth crunch, as there is in fact vast excess capacity on most long distance trunk lines of the 'net. Look up 'dark fiber' at your preferred search engine. This is due to the fact that when you do build new fiber optical links, you don't just put down enough fiber to meet the demand of today. You drop 10 or 100 times the needed capacity into the hole, as the cost of the actual fiber is negligible, compared to the cost of digging the holes and paying the salaries etc. Once the fiber is in the ground, then it is trivial to upgrade the optical equipment at the endpoints as technology improves, thus vastly upgrading the link bandwidth over time.

The 'congestation' you are experiencing in prime time is solely due to your respective local ISPs being cheap on the 'last mile' with the equipment at your local phone central, and the cabling from there to your home. Most technologies in use today have the advertised bandwidth, which usually sounds impressive on paper, *shared* between a very large group of people in a very small, geographical area, like a group of apartment blocks. When you are experiencing slowdowns it is not due to 'people' somewhere out there. It is due to your immediate neighbors also watching NetFlix and YouTube at the same time as you do.

Consider: We live on a spherical planet. If bandwidth congestation was due to long distance capacity issues, or problems at Google etc., then why does *your* problems always follow your local timezone, regardless of where you live? Shouldn't any capacity problems mostly occur when the most people are home from work in the evening as an absolute number, considering the whole planet at once? I note in passing that there are four distinct timezones in the continental US alone.

If you get your data through a wireless connection, then stop doing that. Unlike copper cables and optical fibers there is a physical limit to how much data can be squeezed through the physically available radio bandwidth in a given neighborhood. No amount of extra payments to the ISPs is going to fix this.

In many places you can still pay to get your own, personal old school DSL line using the decades old copper wires in the ground. With a modern DSL router and suitably upgraded equipment at the phone central, you can frequently get upwards of 50 Mbit/s bandwidth, which you won't be sharing with anybody. This is much better than getting 1 Gbit/s - shared between you and your closest few hundred neighbors...

Here in the EU it was revealed that the large, backbone net providers has a profit marging of about 2000%, meaning their expenses are about 5% of the income. This includes expenses like building new transatlantic cables etc. The reason for this is that the very large bandwidth 'hogs' that the ISPs like to complain about, like YouTube, NetFlix, Facebook etc. are in a sense already paying extra for their bandwidth. They do this by building local data center mirrors scattered around the globe, so that the data they put on the net only has to travel relatively short hops on the local net to get to the end users. So for instance NetFlix data for viewers in the EU is emphatically *not* transmitted over the transatlantic cables as you watch your latest soap opera.

The intuitive analogy of comparing ISPs to for instance railroads is completely wrong. If railroads operated on the same conditions as the large network providers, then:

*) They only ship exactly one type of cargo, intermodal containers. They are not responsible for filling or emptying of the containers, the shippers and recipients are.

*) The rail links as built will have 100x the needed capacity, and if needed said capacity can mostly be upgraded further still by replacing just the locomotives.

*) The cost for fuel, personell and upkeep is a constant, irrespective of how many containers are shipped on your network in a given timespan.

*) If for some reason the capacity of a given rail link *is* temporarily exceeded, then the stream of containers can instantly and automatically be rerouted through other links, possibly incurring a huge detour. Yet despite the detour there will be no negative effects to either you or your customers. Keep sipping that coffee.

*) Most of the large scale shipping companies, who pays for your services the same as the container recipients do, have voluntarily built local replication hubs scattered around the world. Through magic they ship a single container with unique contents to the various replication centers, where the container and its contents are magically replicated the moment an order for one just like it comes through. Only then is the copied container shipped a short distance on your railroad to the local recipient.

*) Your main operational bottleneck is the local parking lots at your various intermodal distribution centers. By deliberately refusing to upgrading the parking lot facilites once and for all, you can lobby your local politicians to allow you to charge the shipping companies for which recipient(s) should be allowed to skip the parking lot queue and get their containers ahead of everybody else. Additionally, you would also be allowed to completely refuse any and all container deliveries to, say, that pesky upstart company, who makes better widgets than those your good friend Bob and his company does.
 
bob p 7/21/2017 12:15 PM
Quote Originally Posted by Thoriated Tungsten View Post
...Additionally, you would also be allowed to completely refuse any and all container deliveries to, say, that pesky upstart company, who makes better widgets than those your good friend Bob and his company does.
Wow. Your first post and you accuse me of being the evil widget maker who makes an inferior product but uses graft to ensure my spot in the marketplace.
 
J M Fahey 7/21/2017 1:26 PM
No, Bob´s your uncle.
 
Justin Thomas 7/21/2017 1:34 PM
I thought Bob was your big brother who got it together, with a haircut and a real job...

All jokes aside, I myself am guilty of using "Bob" as a name for "everyman" without consideration for the fact that I actually know many real Bobs, and they may not appreciate it. I'm willing to let the Euro go one time, and will reserve judgment for the reaction... Just trying to give the benefit of the doubt to the new guy...

And, in return I get a simulpost! . :O.

Justin
 
Thoriated Tungsten 7/21/2017 1:36 PM
Quote Originally Posted by bob p View Post
Wow. Your first post and you accuse me of being the evil widget maker who makes an inferior product but uses graft to ensure my spot in the marketplace.
Sorry, thought I had made myself clear. I was talking about Bob, not bob.
 
Leo_Gnardo 7/21/2017 1:56 PM
Quote Originally Posted by Thoriated Tungsten View Post
We had the net neutrality debate here in the EU a few years ago or rather, the claims of the ISPs were quickly debunked and laughed out of existence. Subsequently net neutrality was passed as law in the EU parliament and later ratified as the land of the law in the various EU countries.

Basically you are all being lied to.
It would take a leap of logic & science for that to apply in the USA, things that are evidently in short supply here these days. And we have a large segment of population that enjoys being lied to, they're mostly hooked on watching the "fair and balanced" TV channel and other news & communication networks that follow that model.
 
big_teee 11/23/2017 1:09 PM
Net Neutrality in all probability is fixing to die next month.
It gets voted on Dec. 14.
Bad Juju ghana !
It's time to make your NetNeu opinions known!
T
 
bob p 11/23/2017 2:24 PM
We've already discussed in this thread that net neutrality can mean many different things, depending upon how you define it. I'm still waiting for an operational definition of what "net neutrality" actually means in this legislation. Can anybody fill that gap?

I'm all for the idea of having QoS thrown away and all traffic being treated with equal priority, if the condition is met that people are made to pay for the amount of bandwidth they actually consume. I don't have any problem treating it like a metered utility. You use X amount of bandwidth, you pay for X amount of bandwidth. Paying by the byte provides the consumer with an incentive not to waste bandwidth. The fact that bandwidth is being given away at flat rates ends up causing a lot of the network bottlenecks. When a commodity is free there is no incentive for people to conserve it, so consumption rises to the point that the commodity becomes unvalued and gets wasted. A prime example of this is that people are inclined to stream youtube and neflix and walk away from the PC when they become distracted. They leave the stream running, wasting bandwidth, and then when they come back if they're still interested in the show then they'll rewind it show and stream the same block of data all over again. People wouldn't waste bandwidth like that if they had to pay for those wasted bytes.

If it weren't for streaming video would bandwidth even be important?
 
gui_tarzan 11/26/2017 11:41 AM
One thing this could do that I haven't seen anyone write about yet (unless I missed it), some people, like myself, would reach the point where accessing the 'net isn't worth doing at all. As it is I have spent more time working on my original hobby - model car building - in the last six months than I have in recent years. Partly due to health issues that I've spoken about previously, but partly due to the fact that I'm pretty much fed up with all the crap I've seen online the last couple of years. Most of us are old enough that we did just fine before the internet, and most of us would be fine if it got to be another useless tech tool and we stopped using it. Of course those who sell products and/or services online would obviously suffer, but to be brutally honest I wouldn't be lost without it. It might even be what saves our species from total self-destruction.

I fondly remember the days when we would make a weekend out of going to a model car/toy show. We'd stay in a hotel the night before, attend the show and vendor areas, TALK to real people and generally have a good time. My brother and I made it a point to go to two shows in the last couple of months and that was fun, despite our physical limitations (he's partially disabled, I'm still healing from my last surgery) but boy was it nice seeing old friends that we used to hang around with. The same could be said for any hobby type activity where you were actually looking at the people you were talking to. I've missed those days.

But that's just my .02, take it for what it's worth.
 
bob p 11/26/2017 5:27 PM
I don't really like the internet all that much. Sure I use forums, but back in the days of the dial-up BBS you could still do the forum thing, but it had the benefit that it was selective. Only people who were willing to pay for long distance charges spent much time doing it, and that weeded out most of the noise. S/N was a lot better back then and you wasted a lot less time.

What has the internet brought us? Really?

I could live without electronic statements and e-bills, which only really benefit the company generating the statements by cutting their back office costs, and shifts the responsibility of fetching and printing the bill onto me. I'd prefer not to use email. Using it forces me to commit to another task every day; I've got enough things on my to-do list already and I don't like being bound to a desk, as if I'm an office worker who is obligated to answer emails. If I really want to talk to someone and be sure that I get an answer from them, then I use the phone. The phone is better -- it provides two way communication in real time, instead of a disjointed string of one-way communications that are spread out in time. If you want to have technical discussion, email just isn't a good vehicle for that. It makes the entire conversation stretch out so that a 5 minute conversation might end up taking days to complete. I think email is actually pretty lame as a two-way communication tool. I guess it's OK for one way information dissemination, but beyond that I don't find it all that useful.

Unfortunately email is another way to subject yourself to push-marketing and I already get enough junk mail. Today everyone asks for your email, and if you give it out to a vendor you'll be forced to correspond via email with support staff that try to avoid actually talking to their customers.

Then there's the password problem -- If we didn't have the internet then I wouldn't have to memorize hundreds of different online passwords and the crazy idiosyncratic password requirements that vary from site to site. And we wouldn't have such problems with identity theft. Or google tracking our every move for the rest of our lives. Or wholesale surveillance by government agencies in the name of patriotism.

What good has it brought us, really? It's easier to find and pull down documentation when you need it. That's almost instantaneous compared to waiting a week for something to arrive in the mail. That's a big plus.

The web has changed the face of shopping, though I'm not convinced that Amazon and Guitar Center are any better for us in the big scheme of things than when we had a viable Sears store and a hardware store in every town, and a local Mom and Pop music store.

More than anything else I think the internet has become a vehicle for entertainment and media distribution. that's what most people use it for. I'm not a big consumer of that stuff -- I prefer to read and I don't really like to watch TV. I don't use NFLX and I don't have a youtube account. I could do without them. But some people are actually hungry for that sort of thing. They're the ones who are providing consumption and revenue for the media companies, so they're the ones driving the market. They are changing the world for the rest of us. Because of the mass consumption of cell phones you can't even find a pay phone any more.

I guess we also have to consider that electronic technology has changed the way that spying is done, so that mass surveillance has now become automated. Basically if you choose to use electronic technologies then you're volunteering to be a part of today's surveillance society.

I get by without a cell phone. I don't really need one. When I'm home I can use my land line, and when I'm out and about I don't feel the need to be in constant connectivity with the world. If the internet completely disappeared, it'd take me a while to adapt to the change, but I don't think it'd change my life all that much, and in some respects I think the change would be for the better.
 
Justin Thomas 11/26/2017 6:07 PM
Quote Originally Posted by bob p View Post
What good has it brought us, really? It's easier to find and pull down documentation when you need it. That's almost instantaneous compared to waiting a week for something to arrive in the mail. That's a big plus.
Interesting points all around, and I agree with pretty much all of it. One thing to me that the internet has done positive is to allow THIS PLACE. For over ten years, Ampage & M.E.F. were my only "social media." I cut my teeth here & learned just about everything I know. For THAT, I am extremely grateful.

The internet has made it quite easy to pursue my hobby of AMP-building, even after all the brick&mortar stores within a hundred miles of my home have closed. That is also good for me. But as for the rest of it, it all turns out to be mixed blessing at best, and a curse at its worst...

All well-stated, Bob.

Justin
 
big_teee 11/26/2017 7:07 PM
Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon may soon be free to block content, slow video-streaming services from rivals, and offer “fast lanes” to preferred partners.

So how is retricting what content I get and how past I get it, going to benefit me?

It will probably make the big bigger, and the small smaller.
For now I'm totally against doing away with net neutrality!
https://www.wired.com/story/heres-ho...-the-internet/
 
bob p 11/26/2017 9:16 PM
Quote Originally Posted by big_teee View Post
So how is retricting what content I get and how past I get it, going to benefit me?
Some people will benefit from the changes, others won't.
 
Steve A. 11/27/2017 12:30 AM
Quote Originally Posted by bob p View Post
We've already discussed in this thread that net neutrality can mean many different things, depending upon how you define it. I'm still waiting for an operational definition of what "net neutrality" actually means in this legislation. Can anybody fill that gap?

I'm all for the idea of having QoS thrown away and all traffic being treated with equal priority, if the condition is met that people are made to pay for the amount of bandwidth they actually consume. I don't have any problem treating it like a metered utility. You use X amount of bandwidth, you pay for X amount of bandwidth. Paying by the byte provides the consumer with an incentive not to waste bandwidth. The fact that bandwidth is being given away at flat rates ends up causing a lot of the network bottlenecks. When a commodity is free there is no incentive for people to conserve it, so consumption rises to the point that the commodity becomes unvalued and gets wasted. A prime example of this is that people are inclined to stream youtube and neflix and walk away from the PC when they become distracted. They leave the stream running, wasting bandwidth, and then when they come back if they're still interested in the show then they'll rewind it show and stream the same block of data all over again. People wouldn't waste bandwidth like that if they had to pay for those wasted bytes.

If it weren't for streaming video would bandwidth even be important?
Bob, my internet service has a monthly bandwidth cap and if I exceed that amount I am charged extra. From your post I get the impression that your internet provider does not have a bandwidth cap. In the interests of a free market I think it best to leave that decision up to the internet provider and that we as the end user decide if we want a provider that has or doesn't have a bandwidth cap.***

The cellphone plans that offer unlimited bandwidth usually have a cap on 4G or 3G access. Once you exceed that cap your Internet connection is much slower. Or so I have heard (my cellphone plan does not include data.) One common complaint is that you can't choose when to use the 4G or 3G network, like if you wanted to save it for when you really want or need a fast connection. Not an option, the first bytes you use are 4G or 3G and once the cap is reached you get slower access.

Steve A.

*** It would also depend if you get your internet access through cable or through DSL on your phone line. With cable the pipe delivering your internet service is shared with all of your neighbors so if everybody is streaming video during primetime your connection slows down. With DSL the pipe delivering your internet service is not shared.

So with cable access it is like water rushing down a river. Whether or not you decide to divert some of that water for your own personal use does not change the amount of water coming from its source. I believe that the main reason for the bandwidth cap is for the benefit of the lower bandwidth customers so that their internet access is not slowed down by the bandwidth hogs. The ISP is pushing out so many bytes per second to be shared with all of the customers on that pipe. However, like the electric utilities, if there is a demand for more total bandwidth then they must build a bigger pipe so it is only fair that the bandwidth hogs help pay for that. So yes, there are some mixed issues here — it is not strictly black or white.

This was in the paper the other day...

Pai suggested Tuesday that the Federal Trade Commission, not the FCC, should be responsible for policing the industry and protect consumers.
• “As a result of my proposal, the Federal Trade Commission will once again be able to police ISPs, protect consumers, and promote competition, just as it did before 2015,” he said in a statement. “Notably, my proposal will put the federal government’s most experienced privacy cop, the FTC, back on the beat to protect consumers’ online privacy.”
• Proponents of net neutrality say the FTC is ill-equipped for the task. For one thing, it’s not clear whether the FTC even has the authority to regulate companies that offer both phone and Internet service. And the agency can only issue enforcement actions on individual cases brought by consumers against companies.
• In other words, the burden falls onto the consumer to alert the agency about wrongdoing.
• “The average American is not going to be familiar with the process,” Falcon of the Electronic Frontier Foundation said. “It’s a lot of work to file a complaint with the FTC.”
• Moreover, the FCC can issue rules that the entire industry must follow, which would prevent fraud. The FTC doesn’t have such broad power, which means the agency can act only after a company commits a violation.
• “These cases would have to be brought one at a time, which favors the broadband providers,” Anant Raut, a former FTC attorney and antitrust lawyer in the Justice Department, wrote in an opinion piece for The Hill, “as opposed to the consumer-friendly way it works now, when the blanket prohibition prevents the activity from occurring in the first place. Eliminating net neutrality’s bright-line rules would shift the burden of enforcement against multibillion-dollar corporations onto beleaguered consumers.”
FCC chair?s plan to undo Internet rules flies against today?s reality - San Francisco Chronicle
 
Justin Thomas 11/27/2017 12:33 AM
Quote Originally Posted by bob p View Post
Some people will benefit from the changes, others won't.
Overheard at a press conference:

"Some" people (none of you regular schmoes) will "benefit" (wink wink) (from us telling you what you want and need) from the "changes (that were part of the Original Plan anyway, but we knew you'd never swallow THAT!) ," others won't." (turns around and winks to fat cat suit guys behind, "don't worry, we gotcha!")

I apologize for my cynicism... But not really.

Justin
 
Steve A. 11/27/2017 1:03 AM
Quote Originally Posted by bob p View Post
I don't really like the internet all that much. Sure I use forums, but back in the days of the dial-up BBS you could still do the forum thing, but it had the benefit that it was selective. Only people who were willing to pay for long distance charges spent much time doing it, and that weeded out most of the noise. S/N was a lot better back then and you wasted a lot less time.
I only used the BBS's and other services which had local phone numbers. I remember paying $12.50/hr for Compu$erve. One night I fell asleep at the computer and when I woke up 6 hours later I was freaked out over the $75 session... yikes! Fortunately Compu$erve ended the call after 15 minutes on inactivity. Whew!

I get by without a cell phone. I don't really need one. When I'm home I can use my land line, and when I'm out and about I don't feel the need to be in constant connectivity with the world. If the internet completely disappeared, it'd take me a while to adapt to the change, but I don't think it'd change my life all that much, and in some respects I think the change would be for the better.
I have a Lifeline cell phone which is free for low-income people like me. In California we get unlimited calls and texts. Whoopie!

I am still disabled so I need to take a cell phone with me whenever I drive anywhere — if my car breaks down I can't just walk a mile or two to reach a phone as I used to be able to do.

My Lifeline plan does not include data so I am not connected to the internet when I am out and about. I usually bring my Samsung tablet with me but I can only connect to the internet through wifi.

I have become completely dependent on the internet to keep informed - I have digital subscriptions to many newspapers and magazines. I have always been very inquisitive... "how does THAT work?" so I'm always looking things up when I have a wifi connection.

Not to mention music... I am very dependent on the internet to learn songs. I'll find the lyrics and chords on the Ultimate Guitar site and listen to them on YouTube. No need to hunt for illegal MP3's on sleazy internet sites any more...

I almost forgot to mention internet shopping... rather than driving around looking for hard-to-find items (or good prices) I see what is available on Amazon or eBay. And I do pay practically all of my bills digitally - no more hunting for stamps!

Steve A.
 
Mark Hammer 11/27/2017 6:49 AM
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techt...out-consumers/
 
bob p 11/27/2017 8:42 AM
Thanks for the link Mark. Unfortunately, that article seems to be written by someone with a political axe to grind, and it was so brief that it didn't bother to answer any of my questions. Looking at Tom Wheeler's service dates, it appears that he's Obama's former FCC chairman; it's obvious that he would not favor anyone overturning his decisions. Unfortunately that's not quite the objective spell-out that I was hoping for.
 
Mark Hammer 11/27/2017 1:23 PM
How is it that anyone serving under the previous administration could NOT be neutral, and supporting principles that supercede partisan factors? Indeed, he argues the view that previous Democrat AND Republican administrations have fought for the principles he is advocating. To simply chalk this up to "sour grapes", somehow, betrays little understanding of how public bureaucracies work.

I will concur wholeheartedly that the piece is rather brief, and assumes a degree of knowledge about both existing oversight mechanisms, and those proposed, that many of us likely don't have. But his central thesis is one that I see coming up again and again under administrations that cleave towards the wishes of business, under the banner that it will all eventually somehow benefit the little guy. "this proposal raises hypocrisy to new heights. They are “protecting consumers” by disavowing responsibility to do just that. They are providing for “better regulation” by giving authority to the FTC which has no regulatory authority. " That is, take authority away from those with expertise in the subject matter and give it to those without any relevant expertise or authority. Would you accept giving authority over consumer-protection matters to the FTC?

Still, it's clear that the proposal has made the writer pissed, and in an accusatory mood. Of course, when you lead a federal institution and all the skilled folk who serve under you and believe in the mission, and see their authority simply taken from them in carte blanche fashion, you tend to get a little testy. You can't have a functioning public service that works hard because they believe in their mission if the folks above them don't. The response such manouvers is likely to elicit from FCC employees is "Fuck it. Why should I even care any more?" Now there's value for the tax dollar!

I see this in multiple jurisdictions. Politicians motivated, and sustained, by anger come in with a head full of steam about what they want, with precious little idea about how anything actually works, when it works properly, or how it would need to work in order to achieve the public good.
 
bob p 11/27/2017 7:26 PM
Quote Originally Posted by Mark Hammer View Post
How is it that anyone serving under the previous administration could NOT be neutral, and supporting principles that supercede partisan factors?
I look at it from a different perspective. I don't see how anyone serving under the previous administration could possibly be neutral, considering first that the objectives of this administration and the previous one are at odds, and second that the bureaucrat responsible for enacting the Obama administration's stance could not possibly be unbiased in critiquing the present administration's efforts to undo what he himself worked hard to create. There's no objectivity there. There can't be. Anyone who expects objectivity in that context is a fool.

Still, it's clear that the proposal has made the writer pissed, and in an accusatory mood. Of course, when you lead a federal institution and all the skilled folk who serve under you and believe in the mission, and see their authority simply taken from them in carte blanche fashion, you tend to get a little testy. You can't have a functioning public service that works hard because they believe in their mission if the folks above them don't. The response such manouvers is likely to elicit from FCC employees is "Fuck it. Why should I even care any more?"
Believing in the mission means you've taken a political stance, which IMO is a no-no for anyone working in a low-to-mid level in a bureaucracy. Their job is to execute the mission to which they've been assigned, without having their ability to perform their jobs becoming impaired by conflicts that may arise with their personal beliefs. "Fuck it" is clearly an inappropriate response.

You work in the Canadian bureaucracy, so maybe you're familiar with the concept that the government was not created to exist for it's own self interest. The government exists to serve the People, and when the People have elections that bring in new administrations with new ideas and objectives, it's the bureaucrats' obligation to stifle themselves from saying "Fuck it", to bite the bullet, and to serve the needs of the electorate without complaining about having to change gears.

Sure, it's inconvenient to change directions and doing so makes you waste a lot of time and effort by recovering old ground as you've moved from Point A to Point B and you're your forced into making your way back to Point A all over again. But maybe, just maybe, recovering that old ground isn't a waste of time. Maybe the waste of time occurred in covering that ground in the first place and moving to Point B was a mistake. (I'm not particularly referring to this specific instance, just to direction changes in general.) Or maybe the moves back and forth between Points A and B just illustrate vacillation in the will of the People. Maybe that inefficient waste of time and recovering of the same ground is the price that We the People in the United States have to pay for the freedom to choose to redirect out government. Administrators have no business complaining about being inconvenienced by the Electorate's change of heart. The bureaucrats' job is to buck up and do their job without complaining about politics. Taking a job in the bureaucracy involved knowing that these kinds of things can and will happen. It's the norm. "Fuck it" is an inappropriate response that comes from administrators who are considering their own inconvenience rather than the inconvenience of the people they serve. They have their perspective all wrong.

If the bureaucrats who work in government aren't capable of adapting to the changing will of the People then those people in government need to get out of government, they don't belong there. Their positions are made available to them to serve the will of the People, as manifest by the administrations that the People elect to power. Bureaucrats have no business having opinions contrary to the folks above them. Their job is to serve them, and if they can't serve them they they have become an impediment to progress and they need to get out of the way.

I see this in multiple jurisdictions. Politicians motivated, and sustained, by anger come in with a head full of steam about what they want, with precious little idea about how anything actually works, when it works properly, or how it would need to work in order to achieve the public good.
Yeah, it must suck to have a job in that environment. I never had any interest in it.
 
The Dude 11/27/2017 7:44 PM
IMO, your post highlights exactly the problem- politics before policy. If party "A" believes "this", party "B" must believe "that", regardless of policy or practicality of policy. The good of the country is second to getting reelected. Every idea is assigned a "D" or an "R" and turned into political fodder- even those ideas that have little or nothing to do with politics.
 
bob p 11/27/2017 7:49 PM
of course. If you're happy with the current policy, then you're all about making it perpetual. But what if you're not happy with the current policy, and you're one of those people who thinks that the ship has been headed in the wrong direction for a long time? Perpetual consistent policy above politics means that the ship can never be steered because the system of checks and balances imposed by the electorate has been usurped in the name of consistent policy. Without the ability to change government, what good is government to us? If we can't change it then we become victims who are oppressed by it. The machine is just going to keep operating the same way, discriminating against one group in favor of another just like it always has been. Serving the will of the constant policy machine is a Kafka nightmare in action. Politics has to define policy, policy can't exist on it's own or else we as people end up becoming vassals of the state with no independent will and we're stuck serving a machine that we are powerless to change.

Sometimes a little chaos is actually a good thing.
 
Steve A. 11/27/2017 8:03 PM
Quote Originally Posted by bob p View Post
Thanks for the link Mark. Unfortunately, that article seems to be written by someone with a political axe to grind, and it was so brief that it didn't bother to answer any of my questions...
Here is a basic explanation of net neutrality from one of the Chronicle's columnists that might answer some of your questions:

Net neutrality is a concept that requires companies that provide Internet access like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon to treat all content equally.
• In 2015, the Obama a dministration issue d rules that legally codified net neutrality. Advocates feared that big corporations could pay Internet service providers to transmit their content at greater speeds. Therefore, smaller companies, which can’t afford to pay such “tolls,” would be shut out. But some major Silicon Valley companies fear that they too may have to pay more to get their content streamed quickly to consumers. And consumers, for their part, may lose out because they can’t get access to information, or could have to pay more to watch shows, advocates say.
• Opponents of the Obama-era rules say they were unnecessary and would stifle innovation.
• On Tuesday, Federal Communications Commission C hairman Ajit Pai said he plans to repeal those rules. The commission is expected to vote in December.
— Thomas Lee
FCC chair?s plan to undo Internet rules flies against today?s reality - San Francisco Chronicle

For a more thorough explanation you might want to dip your toes in the Wikipedia entry (I got up to the middle of page 2 in the 25 page PDF file I created.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

If anyone wants to study it off-line I attached a PDF of the Wikipedia article:

[ATTACH]45889[/ATTACH]

Steve A.
 
big_teee 11/27/2017 8:07 PM
if it represents the right, it probably represents the rich.
If the right likes it, then you can probably bet it is a policy to help the rich get richer.
Like the Tax cuts, that boils down to more money for the top.
Can you believe they are trying to sell the old Trickle Down, again?
So much for this new regime being for the working guy!
If you disagree that's fine.
That's my two cents!
T
 
The Dude 11/27/2017 8:08 PM
edit: @ bob p (I took too long to type)

I think you missed my point. It's not about "perpetual policy". I wasn't advocating changing or not changing anything. I'll try again.
Speaking broadly, there are fewer "thinking voters", IMO. For instance, I myself am a registered Independent- a sort of Conservative Democrat, if you can fathom it. When considering voting, I ignore D's and R's. I look at policy- what does the candidate intend to do and do I agree with it? I will read about and study issues. By contrast, there are many happy to go down the ballot and simply check all of the R's or D's with no regard to how that effects them. In turn, the elected legislate policy to get reelected- that policy which is inadvertently decided by those who have no idea what the policy is except that it had a "D" or an "R" associated with it. It's a vicious, stupid, self destructive cycle.
Again, I stipulate that this is broad and vague. One could go down to the trees and pick it apart, but looking at the forest, that's what I see.
 
bob p 11/27/2017 8:18 PM
I'm sure it's going to surprise you guys to hear that I'm a registered D. Dude, I don't vote straight ticket either, except in the primaries where we don't have any choice but to press the All-D or All-R button. Me, I'd prefer an L-button (or better yet an A-button) but we just don't have those.

Steve, thanks for posting that PDF. It's a great read. I think I'm in favor of a dumb pipe that doesn't understand QoS, and making people pay for the amount of water they take out of the pipe. I guess that means I'm for NN as long as there's a meter on peoples' consumption of the resource.
 
Enzo 11/27/2017 8:21 PM
bob, your argument assumes that EVERYONE in government is an ideologue. They are not.

I think vaccination is good and important. I do not think this because I am a "liberal", I think this from knowledge of biology. If I were working in the CDC, and the new regime comes in and decides that vaccination is not important, I oppose that. Not because they are the other party, but because I think they are wrong. If "my party" decided to go against vaccination, I would oppose them as well. I am not unique in this.
 
The Dude 11/27/2017 8:25 PM
That is a great example of what I was getting at, Enzo. The point being that there are fewer elected practical moderates and seemingly more (both) right and left wing extremists. Although they aren't all ideologues, many will vote with the ideologues to gain reelection.
 
bob p 11/27/2017 8:29 PM
Vaccination is an interesting example. It should be offered, but it shouldn't be forced upon people.

The problem is that for all of those people who are spared from a debilitating disease by vaccination, there are those one in a million people who will suffer a crippling adverse reaction to the vaccine that destroys their lives. The problem isn't whether vaccinations are good or bad. The problem is that there are people in government who think they are so smart that they know what's best for everyone else, and they're so arrogant that they intend to impose their will upon other people. They take independent choice away from people, forcing their will upon people because they think they know what's best for them. Knowing a little bit about biology isn't the end in and of itself, and it certainly doesn't trump a person's right to self-determination.
 
The Dude 11/27/2017 9:23 PM
However, what should trump a person's "right to self determination" is the risk of endangering others, especially if the vaccine risk is small (and it must be for approval of the vaccine). In the case of smallpox, it was about one in 10 million who had medical issues with the vaccine. Is it fair to put the entire school at risk because of one family? The government requires many things that some might consider to infringe upon "right to self determination". Most often, those things are to protect the rest of us. "Broke Joe" down the street thinks it's his right to drive without the legally required insurance, but what if he runs into a bus and maims 68 school children. Should they have to pay for their own medical treatment so that Joe's rights are protected?
 
Enzo 11/27/2017 9:56 PM
SO which is your point, that we shouldn't require anything of the people or that I am an ideologue for thinking we should have it?

We know for fact that in areas where anti-vaccination feelings have reduced vaccinations, there have consistently been increases in the diseases the vaccines fight. If we do not have vaccinations at herd-immunity levels,then the measles will romp back. Your desire to non-vaccinate then threatens the health of my family. it isn't as simple as rights.

But the original point I thought you made was if I worked at the CDC during Obama, I couldn;t have any view but the Obama line, and couldn;t be anything else.

And why the ad hominem arguments in the first place. One can disagree with a policy without deciding those in favor are "arrogant" and "think they are so smart". The CDC people are doctors, not guys sitting around the bar after work. If your doctor tells you you need to cut lactose from your diet, or gluten, do you assume he is just trying to "tell you what to do", taking your freedom, and "thinks (he) is so smart"?

Why can't I make an independent choice to drive on the wrong side of the interstate if I want to?
 
The Dude 11/27/2017 10:59 PM
Quote Originally Posted by bob p View Post
I'm sure it's going to surprise you guys to hear that I'm a registered D.
For the record and for clarification, when I said, "......I myself am a registered Independent- a sort of Conservative Democrat, if you can fathom it......", I meant nothing directed at you specifically. The meaning was that, these days, few can comprehend such a point of view. You've got to be one or the other. I want to be sure you understand no ill will was intended.
 
Enzo 11/27/2017 11:50 PM
Politics is a bit like the internet. It is the noisy people who have to be one or the other. There is a WHOLE world of people out there who are not wrapped up in polar politics. it is like the kid who writes in to say he sees a half dozen threads online about some make and model amp and assumes they are not reliable. he ignores the thousands and thousands of amps that did not have the problem. Likewise Trump may have his 25% hard core, and Obama may have his, but there are lots of folks who don't think "I'd rather have a child molester than a democrat."

You DON'T have to be one or the other. That is just how it plays out in the arena.
 
Mark Hammer 11/28/2017 11:22 AM
The mission and mandate is influenced by whoever forms the government of the day, and tailored to whatever challenges are faced by the nation at the time, but at its heart it exists apart from that administration, both before the current and previous administration, and superceding any subsequent administrations. That is, such agencies were created in law to serve a set of enduring challenges and goals. Career public servants often have careers that straddle multiple administrations and have a duty to serve the enduring mission that forms the beating heart of the agency. They are not simply tasked with doing whatever random job the boss assigns without considering its alignment to the mission and mandate.

The EPA and FCC were created because both of those areas (environment and communications) require ongoing oversight. It CAN happen that agencies and their respective missions and mandates are restructured if the legislative bodies concur that those missions and mandates can be more effectively served via that restructuring. That's how DHS was created, for example. But that does not delete the mission/mandate. It simply shifts around the respective budgets, org charts, and reporting relationships for carrying out that mission/mandate. When someone at the top declares "Nah, you guys don't matter anymore. We've decided to sidestep your agency and go with something different.", however, "Fuck it, why bother anymore" IS often the expected and appropriate response. Exactly what is supposed to guide their actions from this point on? Are they supposed to sit by the table like a dog, waiting for whatever scraps of orders fall down? Or should they have a clear sense of the mandate and mission, and work to serve it faithfully and impartially, even when the leadership is busying themselves with other things? That doesn't mean they are supposed to make all decisions independently. They still have a requirement to loyally serve the government of the day. But that government also has a duty to consult the bureaucracy for their best advice, consider that advice, and then act within the guidelines of the respective agency mandates and missions to serve those missions. Wheeler is pissed because this administration decided that traditional contract on which the bureaucratic-legislative relationship is based didn't matter any more. Just one more manifestation of this president's mistaken belief that he ran for position of "boss" and not for national leader.

When I retired recently, at the party I left my former coworkers with the following message: "Always remember that you don't work for your manager. You don't work for their manager. You don't work for the VP or President of our organization, or even the organization. You don't work for the central agencies, or the Minister and you don't work for Parliament or the Prime Minister. You work for the same boss that they all do, which is everyone out there - the Canadian public. I've driven from coast to coast several times, and they're wonderful people. They deserve your very best. Make sure you always give it to them."
 
bob p 12/14/2017 5:41 PM
So today's the big day when the meetings start. The vote is coming soon.
 
The Dude 12/14/2017 6:00 PM
I thought it was already done?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html
 
bob p 12/14/2017 6:48 PM
they did it today.
 
g1 12/14/2017 10:14 PM
I have little knowledge of this whole issue. However, I don't really have to go out on a limb here to conclude we'll all get to pay more for shittier service. (funny, the spell check was fine with that once I put a double t there )
 
Mark Hammer 12/15/2017 10:00 AM
Here's a rather impassioned brief podcast about the mechanisms and history behind the abandonment of net neutrality.

https://www.brookings.edu/podcast-ep...dead-now-what/

The bureaucratic aspects may be lost on those with minimal policy-wonk inclinations. It was reminiscent of something I was involved in, within the Canadian government, for a little while at my previous job. We were working on pay equity - specifically the methodology/measurement aspect - under a piece of legislation the Conservative government of the day had passed, but had never implemented. One of the key aspects that led a subsequent multi-partite parliamentary committee to recommend replacing it, a few years later, was the fact that the government moved adjudication of pay disputes from the Human Rights Commission to the Labour Relations Board. That government was obsessively preoccupied with cutting costs and delivering on a zero-deficit budget promise just in time for the next scheduled election. (They actually did a bunch of dumb things in order to make good on that promise which are turning into HUGE costs now, but we'll set that aside for the moment.) The basic point was that they viewed the Human Rights Commission as too costly (in fairness, the HRC does have a history of being rather generous in its rulings and awarded penalties), so they were eager to move pay-equity disputes out from under the HRC. Trouble was, they moved it to an agency which had a) NO expertise in assessing compensation, collective agreements or value-of-work, and b) had a history of ruling in favour of the employer (because they simply applied the rules and the rules were set by the employer). In other words, rather than looking at the matter through the lens of what mechanisms and institutions would provide the best oversight, they appeared to have looked at it through the lens of "What have we got in place that's probably cheaper for us?". Principles were made subservient to perceived re-electability.

This particular Republican administration appears persuaded of the long-discreditted notion of "trickle-down economics", and tends to favour those mechanisms and shifts that will advantage business. Some may view this through the more conspiratorial lens of establishing and entrenching an oligarchy. I prefer to see it as simply an underinformed notion of what makes a nation work well and live up to its promise. That turns into public policy, as developed by MBAs and IT people, rather than folks who devote themselves to effective public policy serving enduring long-term goals (of course, that shouldn't surprise us, coming from a White House with negligible experience in public policy, but way more interest in business). Hence, the moving of Internet matters from out of the FCC to under the FTC affords the large ISPs opportunity to be more profitable, is interpreted as somehow translating into more choice and better competitive prices for consumers. That sounds great in theory, but I think the problem is that a) in the contemporary corporate world, we can expect to see larger companies buying up smaller ones to create monolithic content production/distribution machines that establish de facto monopolies in many parts of the country, and b) removing regulatory oversight from anything that citizens depend on rarely, if ever, works out well for citizens in the end. The oversight does not need to be heavy-handed or costly, but it needs to have as many suitable teeth for task as possible. As the podcast speaker notes, the FTC does not have those authority-teeth.

Again, in fairness, a commentator I heard on radio the other day noted that content providers had a legitimate complaint that things they needed to monetize to stay afloat were being freely accessed via BitTorrent and Pirate Bay, under low all-you-can-transfer ISP rates. Is the solution to that problem "throttling"? It's certainly one solution, but maybe not the best one. One wonders how long until someone at a major ISP decides to throttle sites of their political enemies. Or conversely, what if everything government related loaded lightning quick but everything news or entertainment-related was slow? Once the mechanisms for throttling are in place, and especially as citizens come to depend on the internet for nearly everything in their lives, then hacking into, and hijacking such mechanisms is not far away. Best, then, to not even have throttling mechanisms of any type in place, and removing net-neutrality eliminates that possible stopgap.
 
Mark Hammer 12/15/2017 10:03 AM
EDIT: duplicate post, sorry.
 
bob p 12/15/2017 10:11 AM
I don't think any of this is at all surprising. Businesses exist to make money, they are not charitable organizations.

We've talked about the drug dealer metaphor before. your first ride is free, afterwards you have to pay for the ride at high prices. As an example: We all got used to getting free service from photobucket, then photobucket pulled out the rug. What a surprise, their business model didn't involve giving their services away for free forever. Eventually they wanted to be paid for the services they provided. People who were accustomed to feasting on the free lunch became outraged!

Net neutrality may end up being the same thing -- in the beginning every ISP gave away the internet for free, just to get everyone addicted, and now they're pulling out the rug. Now people have to pay... a lot. It's as if they're tightening their grip now to make up for years of under-priced servicing.

Of course this isn't going to be popular. But you have to consider that if we were given the pay to play paradigm when the Internet first came along, many of us would have turned away. But the fact that everyone gave away the store for nothing at first made us more interested. Well, now the free lunch is over. While it was free they got us addicted. Now we have to pay for the high.

We can whine about it, or we can think about what a great deal we got in the past, where we basically got a free ride. Whine all we want to, the facts are that things are going to be different in the future. It looks like our only choices now are A) continue to whine, or B) adapt to our changing environment.
 
potatofarmer 12/15/2017 10:41 AM
Quote Originally Posted by bob p View Post
We can whine about it, or we can think about what a great deal we got in the past, where we basically got a free ride. Whine all we want to, the facts are that things are going to be different in the future. It looks like our only choices now are A) continue to whine, or B) adapt to our changing environment.
I've never gotten a free ride. I paid for dialup from '94 to around '05, then had Comcast for the next decade or so and now have FiOS. I don't remember much about my dialup ISPs but Comcast never delivered what I was paying for. They advertised 25mbps down, 2mbps up and I was lucky to get half of that. If you tried to use 75% of what you were paying for, they'd throttle the connection down. Great way to keep people from using VoIP - as soon as you make a call, throttle the speed down until it drops. "Ah, vonage must be terrible." That got me into dd-wrt at least, so I could make sure I never used more than 70% of what I was paying for.

It's like going to a restaurant that advertises an "All You Can Eat Steak Buffet!!" Then you pay to get in, and there's only half of a hamburger on the buffet.
"Where's the steak?"
"Hey, blame the guy that came before you in line. I only take your money to let you in (and keep the guys in the kitchen from bringing out more food.)"
"That greedy S.O.B.!"
"Yeah, and about that... you're getting a pretty good deal here, so we're gonna have to raise the price. Also I'm gonna start getting kickbacks from the guys in the kitchen."
 
Mark Hammer 12/15/2017 10:51 AM
The concern is not so much that people won't be getting a "free ride". The concept of "neutrality" was that the cost and level of service was completely divorced from the content. If one was a government agency, a marketing consultant, an academic botany researcher, a person posting a how-to-fix-your-amp video, a local abandoned-pet-rescue organization, an escort service, or whatever, the speed and cost of data transfer would be the same. If your local ISP charged an arm and a leg for lousy service in one's rural area, so be it; but the quality of service was entirely independent of the content.

The removal of net neutrality could easily mean that when another Murdoch scoops up businesses (including news outlets) and ISPs, the relative accessiblity of the content could depend on decisions the owner/board makes about that content and what to prioritize.

That's the problem. As some have bluntly stated, if you want to see what the absence of net neutrality looks like, look no further than China.
 
big_teee 12/15/2017 10:55 AM
According to Tom?
5 things we just lost!
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/net-neu...ews-18792.html
 
bob p 12/15/2017 11:00 AM
I think a lot of people got a free ride without realizing it. Have you ever watched YouTube without paying for a subscription? If so then you got a free ride on Youtube, where youtube consumed a lot of your ISP bandwidth. YT followed the same business model that everyone else is using -- they gave away Free Rides for a long time, to get everyone hooked on the service, and now that everyone is hooked, everyone has the option of paying for a subscription to YouTube Red or being subjected to nag ads. The free ride was there, it's over now. Life changes. Deal with it. Move on. Stop being a crybaby.

It's funny that Mark is now pointing out that another Murdoch can now come along and scoop up businesses and control news content. I've been labelled a conspiracy theorist for years for saying exactly that. Welcome to the Conspiracy Theorist Club, Mark.

This is your wake up call -- there's no neutrality anywhere. Not in the TV media, not in the print media, not in the Net. It's all programming for the people who are naive enough to accept it.
 
SoulFetish 5/16/2018 4:46 PM
Net neutrality is Back!!
 
The Dude 5/16/2018 5:26 PM
The bill passed the senate. It still has to get through the house, which it won't. Then, Chump has to sign it, which he won't. Don't hold your breath.
 
SoulFetish 5/16/2018 9:01 PM
Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
The bill passed the senate. It still has to get through the house, which it won't. Then, Chump has to sign it, which he won't. Don't hold your breath.
Listen Buzz Killington, i was just trying to enjoy the rare win while it lasted
But, you’re probably right. (Puts head down, turns, and walks away while the sad theme to the incredible hulk is playing)
 
The Dude 5/16/2018 9:06 PM
LOL! FWIW, I'm rooting for it to pass, but not optimistic. I don't want the rich and powerful deciding what we see on the internet any more than the next guy. They can't control what you write, so they're trying to control what you read. Sorry to wreck your buzz.
 
bob p 5/17/2018 9:47 AM
but when they control what you read, they ultimately control what you write, don't they?
 
nickb 5/17/2018 11:15 AM
Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
LOL! FWIW, I'm rooting for it to pass, but not optimistic. I don't want the rich and powerful deciding what we see on the internet any more than the next guy. They can't control what you write, so they're trying to control what you read. Sorry to wreck your buzz.
....but we might not be able to read what you wrote
 
Justin Thomas 5/17/2018 3:34 PM
Bob,

If I understand: If The Dude writes an inflammatory statement but nobody ever reads it, did The Dude really write it?

Justin
 
Chuck H 5/17/2018 3:42 PM
What if things like libraries, civil records, grocery stores, banking institutions and public schools were all managed in the interest of preferential treatment to the most profitable demographic Fundamentally I'm a populist. But the greedy have needs too
 
Chuck H 5/17/2018 5:01 PM
Oh, I don't deserve a "like" for that one. I was just being glib. The TRUTH is that it's only those who wish to target the profitable demographic that have, and will continue to advance the internet and it's technologies. It's just the nature of capitalism. In the end (and we aren't even close to where this ends) we'll take what we can get. And it'll still be pretty cool. Just not quite as cool as what people and organizations with more money have. But you don't get anything if you don't ask and if we're offered more than our fair share of internet (for now) on the grounds that it's a "public" media then we should take it. I probably won't crab about it either way because I (think I) understand the reality of it.
 
The Dude 5/17/2018 5:13 PM
Yes, but what would Al Gore say?
 
Justin Thomas 5/17/2018 5:20 PM
"we gotta stop making all this carbon or we're all gonna diiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeee!!! I should be supreme overlord of all the universe, and sell me all your carbon so i can be an even bigger trazillionaire and i need to confiscate all the jet fuel so i can keep flying everywhere and i wanna be president of the universe and i'm a hypocrite and not really a fan of frank zappa blah blah blah blah blah..."

Hey! I wrote that in all caps!
 
nosaj 5/17/2018 6:05 PM
Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
Yes, but what would Al Gore say?
That he invented it.


nosaj
 
Chuck H 5/17/2018 6:31 PM
Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
Yes, but what would Al Gore say?
Manbearpig
 
SoulFetish 5/17/2018 8:46 PM
Quote Originally Posted by Chuck H View Post
Manbearpig
HA!
 
Steve A. 5/19/2018 3:38 AM
California is working on a state bill on net neutrality...

https://www.cnet.com/news/california...es-first-vote/

Steve A.
 
Mick Bailey 5/29/2018 11:00 AM
Quote Originally Posted by bob p View Post
I think a lot of people got a free ride without realizing it. Have you ever watched YouTube without paying for a subscription? If so then you got a free ride on Youtube, where youtube consumed a lot of your ISP bandwidth.
Not quite - You're still profiled and targeted for ads on Youtube. Your viewing and browsing preferences are tracked and stored so that's the price you paid for viewing. Ever wondered why even days after watching a video the same type of content gets seeded when you later search for something unrelated? Say, you looked for an instruction video on changing a wheel bearing and later the same week automotive content appears when you're looking for Neil Young clip. The seeded content will be ad-rich.
 
SoulFetish 5/29/2018 3:34 PM
Quote Originally Posted by Mick Bailey View Post
Not quite - You're still profiled and targeted for ads on Youtube. Your viewing and browsing preferences are tracked and stored so that's the price you paid for viewing. Ever wondered why even days after watching a video the same type of content gets seeded when you later search for something unrelated? Say, you looked for an instruction video on changing a wheel bearing and later the same week automotive content appears when you're looking for Neil Young clip. The seeded content will be ad-rich.
Mick, this is exactly correct!
The very scary reality is that WE, in fact, are the product.
 
The Dude 5/29/2018 4:50 PM
Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and most other such organizations support net neutrality. IMO, this is more about people who own the infrastructure trying to both cash in and decide what we see, as if they weren't already making enough money. If they were going broke, I might give some credence to their argument. That's not the case. I see it as a free speech issue. Just another way to control the masses.
 
Chuck H 5/29/2018 8:00 PM
Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and most other such organizations support net neutrality. IMO, this is more about people who own the infrastructure trying to both cash in and decide what we see,.. I see it as a free speech issue. Just another way to control the masses.
But hasn't that always been the case? I mean, sure, it would be great if the web were modeled after a PBS type format, but even PBS needs to raise money and the content is often limited. With something like the internet it was bound to be more like the early years of broadcast radio or television where everyone wanted to cash in via advertising and a select few entities end up in control of the content. I actually think that if you're smart enough to know that your being "filtered" and can recognize contrived content then what we have now with *oogle, *outube, *acebook, etc. actually offers much more individuality and freedom of content selection than we've ever had in public media.

And while agree that the big players support neutrality for purposes of greed, I don't even think THAT's a bad thing either. That is, as long as we find value in the product they're offering (not personally, but generally as a culture). The reason is that a successful business model doesn't sit back at some point and say "Hey! We're doing alright. Let's just take it easy and rest on what we've done. We'll just hope that no outside influence buggers our formula, stop trying to find new ways to improve the efficiency of this company and we can all relax and live happily ever after." I'm not sure a company with that mission offer the people something as cool as *bay or *etflix.

So the way I see it it's just the same old game being played on a new board. I don't really see neutrality as that big a deal because, obviously, SOMEONE is going to govern content and even bandwidth (you don't think that the big players prioritize?). It hardly natters who. As long as I can still get on here and talk with you guys and research things as I do now I'm not worried about it. I have no paranoia that Big Brother is going to limit my content or slow down my system such as I would notice. Do people really think that this whole thing could end up as thought control? Really? There are more of "us" (general public internet users) than anyone else. We buy groceries and stuff ON LINE. Our satisfactory link to the web is secure because WE control the decisions of these entities everyone seems to think are trying control us. If some rich goon or government agency wants downloads faster than me it's going to happen one way or another even now.

JM2C
 
The Dude 5/29/2018 8:16 PM
Friggin' capitalist, you!
 
The Dude 5/29/2018 8:29 PM
Ok. That last post was meant as a joke. Saying that, it does bring up a point. How far should capitalism go? Should government never step in and regulate? Should not drug prices be regulated? Should not vehicle emissions be regulated? Should monopolies be regulated, etc. Everyone is entitled to think otherwise, but I think there are times (for public good) that enough is enough and it's Uncle Sam's job to keep things in check, especially when first amendment rights are at risk.
 
Chuck H 5/29/2018 8:34 PM
Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
Friggin' capitalist, you!
I guess so. But only because it's the "system" I was brought up in. Though I've never actually managed to "capitalize" because my moral compass points too true. But I know the culture it supports works (or has) and has afforded me the opportunity to have a life without feeling like I need to compete with every person I meet. Gauging every word and focusing on how I can turn any relationship to my monetary advantage. Bleh!
 
Leo_Gnardo 5/29/2018 8:53 PM
Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
Ok. That last post was meant as a joke. Saying that, it does bring up a point. How far should capitalism go? Should government never step in and regulate? Should not drug prices be regulated? Should not vehicle emissions be regulated? Should monopolies be regulated, etc. Everyone is entitled to think otherwise, but I think there are times (for public good) that enough is enough and it's Uncle Sam's job to keep things in check, especially when first amendment rights are at risk.
As far as regulation, it's a very unequal system. Consider PharmaBro: as a "good" capitalist Marty Schreckle raised the price of a simple cheap drug by a couple thousand percent, so he could live the high life on his profits. That was OK by gummint regulators. But he cheated his investors and that wasn't all right, so MartyBoy bought himself a couple years in prison.

On the other hand a different guy who cheated his investors, also failed to pay contractors building his casinos as well as skipping out on lots of other bills, got elected president, and so far it looks like he's making a clean getaway. Go figure. Yes it is an unequal system.
 
Chuck H 5/29/2018 9:38 PM
Leo, Dude, RIGHT!?!

Maybe the greed problem is graduated to echelons far greater than media moguls trying to sell detergent, bananas and kitchen lamps? Maybe we should be less distracted by "net neutrality", gay marriage, mandatory vaccinations, cops shooting black kids and Donald Trump as President and focus instead on the REAL danger of thought control. Big pharma, industrial farm and food and (to a lesser degree each day) big oil are managing your life at every turn. It's only because you are use to the limitations that you accept them. And the gauge is adjusted to keep you colluded at every turn. Enjoy watching "Game of Thrones" on HBO and get your work done! Here's a clot of protein sold by a conglomerate with a giant M in their logo. EAT IT!!! You're fine. Get your work done. Oh, look! Pretty colors! I love *acebook :-/
 
The Dude 5/29/2018 9:59 PM
I'm not sure how much of that was general thought, how much serious, how much exaggeration, etc. but I'll say this. I do believe the rich and powerful are trying to control the masses. There's a reason they don't support education. Stupid people are easier to control. There's an obvious reason for gerrymandering. There's a reason Trump tries to discredit the media and law enforcement. It makes it easier for him to sell you his lies. Etc., etc., etc. I'm not saying it's a well organized conspiracy, but believe me, those subjects are brought up in those back room caviar and wine board meetings.
Just like the rich fight for their tax breaks and bonuses, the poor man has to fight for what little he has. If we just continue to just say, "oh, well- that's how it is",...... The only thing surprising to me about it is how many people don't get it and are willing to vote against their own interests.
And yes, it is class warfare. You need only to look at the distribution of wealth in this country to see what's going on.
(Soylent Green is people!)
Lunatic rant over.
 
Chuck H 5/29/2018 10:17 PM
I was completely serious (even if three beers in )

And of course Trumpa Lumpa (oompa de doo) sniggers at how people continue to eat his $h!t. The real worry (for me) is that even the Presidency of the United States of America has been redefined as a distraction from the real governing powers.

Oh, look! Something shiney!
 
mikepukmel 6/4/2018 5:18 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Thoriated Tungsten View Post
Hello everyone,

Have been lurking for a bit, but had to register to comment on this. My excuse is that my guitar is at my local luthier to get a proper setup in order to help my newbie playing as much as possible. So here goes.

We had the net neutrality debate here in the EU a few years ago or rather, the claims of the ISPs were quickly debunked and laughed out of existence. Subsequently net neutrality was passed as law in the EU parliament and later ratified as the land of the law in the various EU countries.

Basically you are all being lied to. There is no bandwidth crunch, as there is in fact vast excess capacity on most long distance trunk lines of the 'net. Look up 'dark fiber' at your preferred search engine. This is due to the fact that when you do build new fiber optical links, you don't just put down enough fiber to meet the demand of today. You drop 10 or 100 times the needed capacity into the hole, as the cost of the actual fiber is negligible, compared to the cost of digging the holes and paying the salaries etc. Once the fiber is in the ground, then it is trivial to upgrade the optical equipment at the endpoints as technology improves, thus vastly upgrading the link bandwidth over time.
. . . .
This is a very old thread in internet time, but this is part of the picture I got as well. Depending on where you live, there is a huge excess of bandwidth. Verizon wants to triple our bill for us to get a little better service. Now, they have 79.99 a month deals "for new customers ONLY" that have vastly superior service for 50.00 a month cheaper than we're paying. Only for new customers. In fact, they wanted to charge us over 200.00 a month for worse service than the new 79.99 'new customer' package. its an insult.

I didn't see a piece of the picture that bothers me the most: not only are the few choices big monopolies, but into too many business. What if the service provider is also selling content. What if the internet service provider has spent 10's or hundreds of millions building out a TV service. And you could get, at a vastly cheaper rate (suppose the rate was only the inconvenience of wading through commercial advertisement) to get the same content that Verizon wants you to pay for on their TV content network. Then Verizon would be hard at work, paying their lobbyists in DC to find a way to make you pay for their content one way or another. What better way than to get rid of this pesky, communist, anti American Net Neutrality. I hate the damn term because it reeks of some kind of thing that the republicans would label 'socialist'.

We had Comcast for a few years, equally lousy company. My wife likes to watch Chinese movies, that she can get streamed from web sites over the internet on her iPad. Lots of soapy movies that the Chinese like. Well, she'd watch one web site, then it would just disappear. I checked out and it worked fine at a friends house. So, I found a proxy, and sure enough, we could get through for a while. It became obvious that Comcast blocks 'free' content providers web sites and has the nerve to lie to you that it doesn't do it.

So, what about Verizon? Suppose they have some content they want to sell on one of their networks. And you can get it through some web site unrelated to Verizon. What would prevent them from blocking that web site, or slowing it down so that its unusable (like they did with Netflicks and lied about).

Its a bad thing when the internet service provider also sells content, AND owns the backbone as well. They should not be in all 3 businesses. The TV business should be a completely separate company. The internet service should be a completely separate company. The backbone should also be a completely separate company. There are supposed to be laws that discourage monopolies, but those seem to be ignored for a couple of decades now.

If our town wants to provide internet service, they should be able to contract with the company that owns the internet backbone. They really can't do that, because Verizon owns the backbone. They cooked up that scheme when the whole Genuity scam when down. So, companies like Verizon are working under the covers to pass laws all over the country preventing towns from providing internet service.

Articles like these are popping up all over the place:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...band-networks/

So, they want to control TV content, sell TV content, streaming movies, control what you can and can't see via the internet, and fix prices on all of the services. What could be wrong with that?

The gas and power bill analogies break down quickly since 'internet' is vastly more complex.
 
mikepukmel 6/4/2018 5:28 AM
Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
Ok. That last post was meant as a joke. Saying that, it does bring up a point. How far should capitalism go? Should government never step in and regulate? Should not drug prices be regulated? Should not vehicle emissions be regulated? Should monopolies be regulated, etc. Everyone is entitled to think otherwise, but I think there are times (for public good) that enough is enough and it's Uncle Sam's job to keep things in check, especially when first amendment rights are at risk.

I don't know what "capitalism" means. I think the two major sound bytes are used by either side to try to convince us how bad "the other side" is.

I think we need good regulation, but those seem to be the targets of the groups who don't like being regulated.
 
John_H 6/11/2018 4:46 PM
It's upon us. Net neutrality regulations were rolled back today. I wonder how much things will actually change.
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/11/61892...s-not-dead-yet
 
g1 6/11/2018 5:51 PM
Quote Originally Posted by John_H View Post
It's upon us. Net neutrality regulations were rolled back today. I wonder how much things will actually change.
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/11/61892...s-not-dead-yet
I think I know what they meant with "thrive in a free market", and it's not "pass the savings on to you!".
 
Steve A. 6/11/2018 6:40 PM
Quote Originally Posted by John_H View Post
It's upon us. Net neutrality regulations were rolled back today. I wonder how much things will actually change.
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/11/61892...s-not-dead-yet
That is a good question... the broadband providers tell us to trust them: "Don't worry, we will not slow down our competitors" although there is now nothing to prevent them from doing exactly that.

The first thing that confidence men always say is "trust me!" Speaking of conmen "Sneaky Pete" on Amazon Video is like a modern version of "The Sting", one of my favorite movies from the 70's...

Goodbye to net neutrality. Hello to an even-bigger AT&T? (Excerpt)
by Tony Romm [The Washington Post 06/11/2018]


Two pivotal developments this week could dramatically expand the power and footprint of major telecom companies, altering how Americans access everything from political news to “Game of Thrones” on the Internet.
• Monday marks the official end of the U.S. government’s net neutrality rules, which had required broadband providers such as AT&T, Charter and Verizon to treat all Web traffic equally. The repeal is part of a campaign by Ajit Pai, the Republican chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, to deregulate the telecom industry in a bid to boost its investments — particularly in rural areas.
• “I think ultimately it’s going to mean better, faster, cheaper Internet access and more competition,” Pai said in an interview. Others disagree and will challenge Pai in court, while many states are fighting back with their own laws, further muddling the situation.
•One day after the net neutrality changes, a federal judge is set to rule on Tuesday on whether AT&T can buy Time Warner. AT&T, already the country’s second-largest wireless network, stands to gain a content trove from Time Warner that includes HBO and CNN — leading the Justice Department, which filed the lawsuit, to argue that the company could harm its rivals.
• The two events in Washington could lead to further consolidation of wireless, cable and content giants, public-interest advocates say. And they fear that behemoths like AT&T might someday prioritize their own TV shows and other content over rivals’. Internet service providers, or ISPs, deny that they would engage in such a practice — yet consumer watchdogs worry that consumers would have little legal recourse if they did....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...e99_story.html
PDF of article (to get around monthly paywall limits):

[ATTACH]49249[/ATTACH]

Steve A.