Obama ruins the internet

[Trebuchet]

That's because you aren't getting any of the take.

Here's a List of the Members of Congress Who Just Told Ajit Pai to Repeal Net Neutrality

If your Congressperson is on the list, let them know you are sharing their bribe numbers with your friends and neighbors.

$1,262,757 to Joe Barton of Texas, the third dumbest man in Congress.

 

[acbytesla]

The list was not marked with party affiliation. Anybody know the score thereof?

I'd bet they are all Republicans. I do know that the only 2 Congresspeople on the West Coast are both Republicans.

 

[Polaris]

On the plus side, people could go back to occupying themselves with low-tech forms of entertainment and communication - like tar and feathers.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I'm also now saddened that I had to take my

"Net neutrality didn't exist before 2015 and everything was just fine.

We have always been at war with Eastasia"

Facebook post down under the flurry of angry liberals stunned that I was taking this view. I mean I expected a little bit of Poe's law to emerge, but a lot these people name-drop Orwell at least once a week. How are they not making the connection?!

/sigh

 

[acbytesla]

I'm also now saddened that I had to take my

"Net neutrality didn't exist before 2015 and everything was just fine.

We have always been at war with Eastasia"

Facebook post down under the flurry of angry liberals stunned that I was taking this view. I mean I expected a little bit of Poe's law to emerge, but a lot these people name-drop Orwell at least once a week. How are they not making the connection?!

/sigh

But here's what you're missing in your logic. True, for the most part you are right. . The FCC hadn't implemented this law until 2015. But that is because of a few reasons. 10 years ago ability to prioritize bandwidth on the backbone was problematic. And secondly, the telecoms didn't want to give the government a compelling reason to regulate the internet. Especially with a Democratic President that would.

But, dont kid yourself, this is all about money and power. The telecoms see an opportunity to charge not only you for your access to the internet but charge the websites access to Internet users.. They want to be able to charge eBay or Wal-Mart or Google or Netflix to prioritize traffic to their sites.

 

[thaiboxerken]

All I get is a 'Server Not Found' page.

Trump's plan is already working!

 

[Delphic Oracle]

But here's what you're missing in your logic. True, for the most part you are right. . The FCC hadn't implemented this law until 2015. But that is because of a few reasons. 10 years ago ability to prioritize bandwidth on the backbone was problematic. And secondly, the telecoms didn't want to give the government a compelling reason to regulate the internet. Especially with a Democratic President that would.

But, dont kid yourself, this is all about money and power. The telecoms see an opportunity to charge not only you for your access to the internet but charge the websites access to Internet users.. They want to be able to charge eBay or Wal-Mart or Google or Netflix to prioritize traffic to their sites.

Yup.

Even liberals now only read the first half a dozen words before they decide how to respond.

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be

 

[mgidm86]

Yup.

Even liberals now only read the first half a dozen words before they decide how to respond.

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be

Net Neutrality is not only about bandwidth which is the only thing being focused on in this thread. It's the part of it that is easy to explain and sell to the general public.

I'm not sure how I feel about it, there's a lot more to it. Neither "fix" is really ideal, so I'd like the government to stay out until something better can be arranged.

 

[Upchurch]

Net Neutrality is not only about bandwidth which is the only thing being focused on in this thread. It's the part of it that is easy to explain and sell to the general public.

I'm not sure how I feel about it, there's a lot more to it. Neither "fix" is really ideal, so I'd like the government to stay out until something better can be arranged.

It's arguably not even about bandwidth. It's about "innovative business models" to get people to pay more money for stuff they already have.

 

[Cleon]

I'm also now saddened that I had to take my

"Net neutrality didn't exist before 2015 and everything was just fine.

We have always been at war with Eastasia"

Facebook post down under the flurry of angry liberals stunned that I was taking this view. I mean I expected a little bit of Poe's law to emerge, but a lot these people name-drop Orwell at least once a week. How are they not making the connection?!

/sigh

I'm stealing that.

 

[acbytesla]

Yup.

Even liberals now only read the first half a dozen words before they decide how to respond.

I'm not sure what your point is. From my perspective, we shouldn't let the telecoms control how consumers choose what websites and what applications they use. Conservatives always complain about the government choosing the winners and losers in the market, but is it really better to allow the ISPs to make that choice?

 

[acbytesla]

It's arguably not even about bandwidth. It's about "innovative business models" to get people to pay more money for stuff they already have.

It's sticking a leech on consumers. An invisible toll on every stop on the internet. Imagine a road system with 20 lanes of traffic to whereever a consumer wants to go, The choice is ENTIRELY user driven. By eliminating Net Neutrality we are allowing AT&T etc to provide 40 lanes to a subsidiary and 2 to a new company that isn't. It's kind of the antithesis to free market principles.

 

[quadraginta]

It's sticking a leech on consumers. An invisible toll on every stop on the internet. Imagine a road system with 20 lanes of traffic to whereever a consumer wants to go, The choice is ENTIRELY user driven. By eliminating Net Neutrality we are allowing AT&T etc to provide 40 lanes to a subsidiary and 2 to a new company that isn't. It's kind of the antithesis to fee market principles.

I'm sure it was a typo, but there's a bit of a Freudian slip showing.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm sure it was a typo, but there's a bit of a Freudian slip showing.

You're right, it was a typo, but the moniker fits. And is kind of funny.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I'm not sure what your point is. From my perspective, we shouldn't let the telecoms control how consumers choose what websites and what applications they use. Conservatives always complain about the government choosing the winners and losers in the market, but is it really better to allow the ISPs to make that choice?

I agree with all of that.

It was satire. It was one thing that people missed the satire on Facebook. I'm just floored that when I posted a lament that I had to take it down (I even reference Poe's Law) that...someone still missed that it was satire.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

For the record, I am not a fan of the recent decision. I remember when MMOs went from subscription to "free" to play and I imagine the internet undergoing much the same change. Bearable, limited access to some rudimentary features that work better with more tokens pumped into the machines. FPS fans have been subjected to much the same treament, lately, as well. Grind, grind, grind...or pay to skip!

Now, it "won't be the telecomm" companies doing it. What consumers pay for broadband downrates is chump change compared to commercial enterprise intranets scattered across the globe, and miniscule compared to content hosts' massive upstream/multicasting systems. We already have the model for the future in place. Hulu, Youtube Red, Amazon Prime, Netflix, CBS All Access, etc. Paywalls are going up on text media already, imagine how much all of these video streamers are going to be squeezed for by the ISPs?

Who owns a lot of this infrastructure? Cable companies. So what kind of price tier do you think they might want to push the competitors that have eaten their lunch lately into?

That's where I see things going. Everything else will be akin to pirated content now. Hopelessly buried in the signal-to-noise ratio of popups, redirects, and other trap doors (even with addons, this means keeping up with the ever-escalating war, adding to the inconvenience of internet sans content subscriptions).

My darkest concerns are between this and the content restriction systems in HDMI (digital signature to verify IP license), if someone real doesn't want a particular message getting out, there's starting to be lots of ways to do so without a single first amendment violation happening (no government decision blocked anyone's speech).

Also, on the same day, the FCC started the process of softening (or entirely doing away with) media ownership caps.

So more Sinclair Media "must runs" and less...well...anything else.

 

[acbytesla]

I I agree with all of that.

It was satire. It was one thing that people missed the satire on Facebook. I'm just floored that when I posted a lament that I had to take it down (I even reference Poe's Law) that...someone still missed that it was satire.

For the record, I am not a fan of the recent decision. I remember when MMOs went from subscription to "free" to play and I imagine the internet undergoing much the same change. Bearable, limited access to some rudimentary features that work better with more tokens pumped into the machines. FPS fans have been subjected to much the same treament, lately, as well. Grind, grind, grind...or pay to skip!

Now, it "won't be the telecomm" companies doing it. What consumers pay for broadband downrates is chump change compared to commercial enterprise intranets scattered across the globe, and miniscule compared to content hosts' massive upstream/multicasting systems. We already have the model for the future in place. Hulu, Youtube Red, Amazon Prime, Netflix, CBS All Access, etc. Paywalls are going up on text media already, imagine how much all of these video streamers are going to be squeezed for by the ISPs?

Who owns a lot of this infrastructure? Cable companies. So what kind of price tier do you think they might want to push the competitors that have eaten their lunch lately into?

That's where I see things going. Everything else will be akin to pirated content now. Hopelessly buried in the signal-to-noise ratio of popups, redirects, and other trap doors (even with addons, this means keeping up with the ever-escalating war, adding to the inconvenience of internet sans content subscriptions).

My darkest concerns are between this and the content restriction systems in HDMI (digital signature to verify IP license), if someone real doesn't want a particular message getting out, they have lots of ways to do so without a single first amendment violation happening (no government decision blocked anyone's speech)..

1. Satire almost never works on the net.
2.When I say telecom, I'm talking about whomever hosts your Internet. Whether it be Comcast, AT&T or something else.

Yes, you are right that Comcast is the biggest. I wouldn't worry about the HDMI part. They know your address and theoretically have been able to do that for years.

 

[lobosrul5]

For the record, I am not a fan of the recent decision. I remember when MMOs went from subscription to "free" to play and I imagine the internet undergoing much the same change. Bearable, limited access to some rudimentary features that work better with more tokens pumped into the machines. FPS fans have been subjected to much the same treament, lately, as well. Grind, grind, grind...or pay to skip!

Now, it "won't be the telecomm" companies doing it. What consumers pay for broadband downrates is chump change compared to commercial enterprise intranets scattered across the globe, and miniscule compared to content hosts' massive upstream/multicasting systems. We already have the model for the future in place. Hulu, Youtube Red, Amazon Prime, Netflix, CBS All Access, etc. Paywalls are going up on text media already, imagine how much all of these video streamers are going to be squeezed for by the ISPs?

Who owns a lot of this infrastructure? Cable companies. So what kind of price tier do you think they might want to push the competitors that have eaten their lunch lately into?

That's where I see things going. Everything else will be akin to pirated content now. Hopelessly buried in the signal-to-noise ratio of popups, redirects, and other trap doors (even with addons, this means keeping up with the ever-escalating war, adding to the inconvenience of internet sans content subscriptions).

My darkest concerns are between this and the content restriction systems in HDMI (digital signature to verify IP license), if someone real doesn't want a particular message getting out, there's starting to be lots of ways to do so without a single first amendment violation happening (no government decision blocked anyone's speech).

Also, on the same day, the FCC started the process of softening (or entirely doing away with) media ownership caps.

So more Sinclair Media "must runs" and less...well...anything else.

The good news is, that just isn't how HDMI (HDCP) handshaking works. The only way your ISP could use that to block you would be to write to the firmware of your video card and tell it to block all HDCP protected video. They'd literally need to reverse engineer NVidia/Intel/AMD hardware, force a firmware upgrade, then it'd be all or nothing. You couldn't view any HDCP protected video.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Imagine a road system with 20 lanes of traffic to whereever a consumer wants to go, The choice is ENTIRELY user driven.

Imagine if all those roads were privately owned, with transit agreements allowing toll-paying consumers to go wherever they wanted.

By eliminating Net Neutrality we are allowing AT&T etc to provide 40 lanes to a subsidiary and 2 to a new company that isn't. It's kind of the antithesis to free market principles.

If they don't have a monopoly then the 'new company' should be able to get the 'lanes' they want from another supplier. If they do have a monopoly, and they use it to prevent the 'new company' from being able to compete, then they may be violating the Sherman Act.

But forcing a company to provide its in-house products or services to anyone who demanded them would stifle competition. It's kind of the antithesis to 'free market' principles.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

The good news is, that just isn't how HDMI (HDCP) handshaking works. The only way your ISP could use that to block you would be to write to the firmware of your video card and tell it to block all HDCP protected video. They'd literally need to reverse engineer NVidia/Intel/AMD hardware, force a firmware upgrade, then it'd be all or nothing. You couldn't view any HDCP protected video.

Oh, I know it's not active in most consumer products as of right now. My concern on HDCP is can a piece of media be denied a license by all licensing authorities. It's another type of censorship entirely apart from strangling network bandwidth.

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be