Don’t let monopolists call the shots, save the internet
YamiryuuZero last edited by
@tbgbe: What ugly is saying is that we pay for bandwidth, the speed of our internet connectivity. What Cable companies want to do, by nullifying Net Neutrality, is tamper with ACCESS to information.
Imagine you're going to Vegas for a vacation. How you're going there, whether it's by plane, which will be more expensive but faster, or by car, which will be a lot cheaper but will take longer to get, your end destination is the same: Vegas. You'll end up playing on casinos, staying at a hotel, drinking, etc., regardless of how you went there.
With the end of Net Neutrality, Cable companies would have control, not only over which vehicle you used based on how much you paid, but they would also alter VEGAS ITSELF as they see fit! No longer would you be able to enter on a casino without paying the company that took you there. And what's worse, if they didn't want you inside a particular casino, there would be no legal action you could take to access it! That would hurt not only the consumer, since you can't access the places you went there for, but also the casinos that didn't "sleep" with the companies behind closed doors.
This sort of control is exactly what we're fighting against. A car company has all the right to sell you the car they want to sell, but they can't tell you where to go or not. An ISP has all the right to sell the bandwidth they see fit (whether the consumer will buy or not is out of their control), but they cannot prevent anyone from accessing certain types of data on the internet THEY THEMSELVES hold no rights over! they cannot prevent you from accessing Youtube or even diminishing your connection when you access Vid.me, for example!
Yet that's precisely what they're trying to accomplish! By ending Net Neutrality, Cable companies will not only have permission by law to regulate your bandwidth, they would also have the freedom to prevent you from accessing data they don't like.
Remember kids: preventing access to information is precisely what corrupt governments and dictators want to do! Because without information, the population has no means to protect themselves against the powerful people in the government, which leads to dictatorships as seen in North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. And you know what happens in those countries? People starve to death or the government kill them!
Do NOT let Net Neutrality die!
@quhno: Yes - those that live in the US will have to rely on a speedy mobile network, based on European technology - Good luck USA!
@tbgbe: The impact will be that content providers will move abroad - outside US jurisdiction - like Paypal. Try to reign the net, and the rest of the world will do fine without the Americans. Very fine - just at the moment, US technology is a main contributor to slow spread of the net. The Americns try to invent was is available abroad. NO: The FCC should allow full ITU-T standards in the US including FON and open for competition. That will make Verizon run. Outside the US, the capacity on the fibre is 250 times that of in the US. It is all software well controlling hardware. Open for free technology, we are doing fine without them.
@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 last edited by Quinca71
I was browsing there are few moments, in this site, when Viv had interrupted its connection and this image became the lord of the space. And wouldn't exit except (maybe) I clicked at the bottom that would manifest I don't go take any providence. My connection is outside US.
This is a matter beyond my reach, if anyone thinks there is something meaningful to add, then, please do it.
@quinca71 The site added it.
Quinca71 last edited by Quinca71
Thank you for your proverbial attention.
I said it is beyond my reach, but that is not the whole truth. All are measures taken by antagonistic groups of nations and huge undertakings, all struggling to achieve the power that can lead them to the ultimate goal: money.
This is possibly the oldest behavior of mankind. I avoid getting acquainted with "technical details", which are complex and tiring to understand.