Don’t let monopolists call the shots, save the internet
@an_dz: Why can´t the FCC allow ITU-T STM transmission technology in the US - allowing the fibre to be shared? Then if you do not like your ISP, switch to another one on the same cable - the capacity can be upgraded 250 or more times by using technology everybody else use - outside the US.
So, go ahead Verizon - throttle what you like, and see people move to AT&T - they are welcome...
@gt500: During Bill Clinton, 1992 when the US elevated themselves to God over the net, setting aside all international standards. This makes US telecommunication specific to the US - and since 1992, the world has developed, and ignored the US, more or less - except for Internet content.
@ayespy: The FCC can only regulate in the USA - but tries to rule the world. They tried to replace GSM with "CDMA" - claiming it was "more modern", but failed to mention that it is based on an error in the math - that they believe politicians are elevated way above. Well, math is math and not even the US president can ignore that.
Standards exists outside the US for transmission technology that the FCC ban in the US because it is not invented in the US. Nokia can demonstrate transmission capacity that is more than 500 times of what is possible in the US. The same can Huawei and Siemens, Alcatel and the rest.
American companies can compete in the US, and the FCC can regulate them in the US. Be my guest and "regulate". Until now, it has been a disaster for the US. One day even the common American will see that foreign technology is better than home-brew "Popular Mechanics".
@antikapitalista1: Nope - All attempts by the state to control the individual is according to Marx communism, and the libertarian, is where the focus is on the individual - like Ayn Rand - is Net Neutrality. Get the ideology right: State control: Socialism and Communism, Liberalism is the individual, protecting the right for every individual to realise own potential, at the extreme, disregard the effect on others.
@ugly: Start by dismantling the FCC as some deity. It is not, just a US regulatory body, like Ofcom in the UK. Make more mess, and the control of the net will be taken over by the ITU and the US will be just another country with a code, naming will be seized control of.
We are doing fine without the US technology, but the Americans suffer since they are deprived from using international standard technology - also repeated in the quote error: ISDN telephony is an "always on" service. Your mobile phone use GSM, and the ISDN signalling stack - and this can use whatever transmission technology that is around.
Make a leap and increase capacity in the US - use ITU-T standard transmission technology that the NSA cannot intercept without being detected.
ugly last edited by
Consumers already pay differential pricing. ISPs offer consumers. If the ISPs serve your area, you likely have the option to pay for different service tiers. For example, you can buy a 5Mbps service, or pay more for 10Mbps, 20Mbps, 50Mbps, etc.
But the best way to charge for the internet use, and I am talking only about bandwidth here, not censorship in any way, is those use more or faster bandwidth should pay more. And they should not be subsidized by the rest of the users on the internet.
I may be misunderstanding something, but aren't you both saying the same thing?
I've still yet to hear any well-reasons response that net neutrality is a bad thing.
this whole Net Neutrality scam was an Obama turd.
Yet drawing different conclusions???
@YamiryuuZero gave a good analogy.
The problem is that since there are no good actual arguments against net neutrality, the anti-net neutrality lobby pulled the only tactic they could: propaganda.
The anti-net neutrality lobby has managed to confuse and outright lie about the issue so much that most people don't even know what the issue actually is. This is why you get articles like the Bloomberg article I posted. It is complete misinformation.
Since reason could not win out against net neutrality, they decided to rile up their base with the standard tactics - lie about the issues, mention a few buzzwords about economics without properly applying them to the facts, mentioning socialism and/or communism. And when all else fails mention Obama.
@yamiryuuzero: Apply ITU-T standard transmission technology, and eliminate the cable companies overnight. The fibre can then be shared by hundreds of ISP and offered to those that need service.
The US is growing fast to an old communistic state.
@yamiryuuzero: The advantage of the mobile network is that you have other operators that can offer you service - you do not have to use Dilma, if you do not like her - it is just to get a new SIM from another service provider.
This mindset is European, competition is healthy, competition force people to be creative, competition makes the best technology win. Protected by those that believe they should know is just to keep mediocre technologies alive - the second best. Politicians should not interfere, and if they do not dare to let the best win - it is their problem. This is the case with the US, in Brazil companies can compete. Cable companies can use the fibre, Internet companies can use cable, phone companies can negotiate the cheapest and best lines.You cannot do this in the US - here the big companies own the network, and multiple links must be pulled by everyone.
sovietotaku last edited by
Sorry, but I can do nothing for you.
I'm already live in a country where internet is regulated by state with the level of 451F degree. And nobody cares about this situation, everyone accepts it.
TbGbe last edited by
Thanks, that is what I understood @ugly to be saying and the argument I did understand.
You pay so much for access speed and can access ANY site at the speed you are paying for ( not have your ISP restrict speed artificially for some sites).
Now I hope @Aguila1952 can explain how his argument is different. He seemed to be saying that some users are NOT getting the access speed they pay for.
I am unclear why this is a result of Net Neutrality and not the responsibility of the ISP(s) connecting those users.
mossman last edited by mossman
No one mentions it but this whole Net Neutrality scam was an Obama turd.
Bwahahaha! Well if that's your line of thinking then you obviously have absolutely no clue what you are taking about.
I remember arguments about net neutrality in the 1990s... a good DECADE before Obama came along.
Isocult last edited by
Mozilla teaming up with Soros who aims to implement discerning software into that browser is a new brand of limiting neutrality. Besides Mozilla I have come to basically distrust any browser that uses the Chrome engine. Vivaldi seems like an effective alternative. Next to working on sync, mobile and mail, would it be possible to include saved passwords from another browser in the bookmark import functionality?
Woogeroo last edited by
They were doing this when Obama was in office too, politics is irrelevant here, this is about control and greed. Neither party believes in true privacy, the head of the FBI has publicly stated Americans should only expect a 'reasonable' amount of privacy without giving any standards as to what that might entail, it is a big sick joke at this point.
@quinca71 The site added it.