Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > Areas of Expertise > Technology and Communications

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 14 December 2017, 22:30
wowzers wowzers is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,465
Net Neutrality

Can some of you tech savvy folks please explain the implications for this recent vote to this hillbilly?

Last edited by wowzers; 14 December 2017 at 23:00.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 14 December 2017, 22:55
ET1/ss nuke's Avatar
ET1/ss nuke ET1/ss nuke is offline
If you don't smell ozone, the radiation won't kill you before next week.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: sc
Posts: 5,353
Sure: you are screwed. Rich people are arguing over who gets to profit from that, as usual.
__________________
"I don't know whether the world is run by smart men who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Twain

"I agree that his intentions are suspect, and that he likely needs to die...." - SOTB

"Just a lone patriot acting alone at a fulcrum point, ideally in a deniable fashion. A perpetrator of accidents." - Magician
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 14 December 2017, 23:28
Shark0311 Shark0311 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: IL
Posts: 470
This is about as simple as it gets. The problem is actually pretty complex and shouldn't be oversimplified but basically internet service providers want to make more money on content that they didn't create.

Comcast loses cable subscribers to Netflix but still provides the internet and they want "their" money back.

https://www.cnet.com/videos/beer-hel...et-neutrality/
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 14 December 2017, 23:50
Shark0311 Shark0311 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: IL
Posts: 470
This is a more detailed description of what is going on and is a key argument for NN. Before Title 2 the ISP's were in violation but the government had no legal standing to regulate it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...silliman-truth
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 14 December 2017, 23:55
havok88 havok88 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: US
Posts: 1,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shark0311 View Post
This is about as simple as it gets. The problem is actually pretty complex and shouldn't be oversimplified but basically internet service providers want to make more money on content that they didn't create.

Comcast loses cable subscribers to Netflix but still provides the internet and they want "their" money back.

https://www.cnet.com/videos/beer-hel...et-neutrality/
They get their money when they receive the monthly payment for the internet.

I suspect by next week people will forget this ever existed.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 15 December 2017, 00:50
Shark0311 Shark0311 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: IL
Posts: 470
Not likely. The impact is tangible. When you have to pay an internet surcharge for video streaming or suffer from low quality video once again people will get it.

All of this has happened in the past thus the decision to regulate the ISPs as a utility. Every major ISP is also a content provider and have favored their content over the competitions. It costs more money and takes more skill to innovate and create content then it does to shake down the competition for protection money. AT&T wouldn't have to spend billions of dollars to acquire a good phone company like Ring Central to replace their shitty ip phone products ever again. They would simply tax them for making a better product.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 15 December 2017, 01:14
wowzers wowzers is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shark0311 View Post
This is about as simple as it gets. The problem is actually pretty complex and shouldn't be oversimplified but basically internet service providers want to make more money on content that they didn't create.
Thanks for the links. While it seems like more of a money issue do you see it impacting the free exchange of information? Like burying unpopular ideas being searched for?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 15 December 2017, 01:29
Shark0311 Shark0311 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: IL
Posts: 470
No, not in my opinion. The money is in market share for content delivery, business services, advertisement and subscription based consumer services.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 15 December 2017, 01:36
Shark0311 Shark0311 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: IL
Posts: 470
If the ISPs ever went that route then people would simply encrypt traffic as a matter of course which would then stop their ability to make money off of the backs of others.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 15 December 2017, 01:59
DirtyDog0311's Avatar
DirtyDog0311 DirtyDog0311 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South
Posts: 6,754
Dollars to donuts this will be used to 'censor' sites that have views opposite the management of XXXX company.

Example: Let's say that Comcast doesn't like Breitbart.com (there could be any number of reasons for this, most of which we all know), so therefore their "business decision" is to throttle traffic to and from Breitbart.com to, say, 24 kb/s. This would effectively destroy the traffic to Breitbart, and subsequently the advertisers would pull thier ads due to low ROI.

Remember, this isn't about 'govt control' as lolbertards suggest. This is about the new form of "private" censorship that is all the rage now that the leftists have infiltrated and cornered the market in the tech world. They want control of the internet. Net neutrality banned the companies from playing favorites. Now they're able to provide aid and comfort to the enemy by masquerading these stratagems as "private business decisions". Which conservitards have been Pavlovianly conditioned to believe is sacrosanct.
__________________
Days since DD0311 has advocated violence against "the left": 0
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 15 December 2017, 03:39
Steve83 Steve83 is offline
**** Cancer
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,390
My favorite Internet ranter's take on it.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh8sVHb5oOA
__________________
"Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!"

~ Frédéric Bastiat
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 15 December 2017, 04:40
DB8541 DB8541 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 791
Well, I do not watch the news and rarely watch TV unless it is a show I DVR'd but I do try and read a lot of news and other informative type stuff so this might be the catalyst to pull away even more from the immediate information overload digital age.

The only thing worse then being bombarded with marketing and media spin is when you try and seek truths but find it is BS most of time or force fed talking points and politically shaped lane narratives. This is currently happening on YouTube owned by Google with many channels being censored and banned because of content YouTube doesn't like or Identify with as hipsters and SJW's. They are a private company and can do as they please but it is the beginning of more censorship of content of differing opinions then the .com site and will become the norm now I fear.

Today is 1984 and most of our society doesn't even know it or care, Sad.

Last edited by DB8541; 15 December 2017 at 04:47.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 15 December 2017, 08:51
DirtyDog0311's Avatar
DirtyDog0311 DirtyDog0311 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South
Posts: 6,754
It's been proven that Google has contracts with the NSA to spy on the population and remit that info to the alphabets for [insert whatever reason they make up]. Facebook too. And Microsoft. And YouTube, which is now owned by Google, also falls into that category. In my mind, that makes them accessories/collaborators to flagrantly illegal activities. In doing so, it makes the whole "they're a private company they can do what they want" obsolete. It simply does not apply to them anymore.

This isn't censorship for the sake of modesty, morality, or protecting privacy. It's for the purpose of establishing monopolistic control over thoughts, ideas, expression, and for manipulating and manufacturing the public psyche. I think it's time to re-examine this idea of private businesses getting to do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want. Because letting these people keep hold of that kind of power is insanely dangerous.

As Steve83's video presenter points out, this is a decision between flawed choices. Either we remove control and let the private businesses run amok and do whatever they want --- and we KNOW what they are planning to do (censorship, thought police, etc) --- OR, we 'allow' the govt to have yet another power that they will never relinquish.

IMO, we know that the private leftists are planning to censor should we remove control. We know that the govt, when it inevitably gets another leftist administration again, will censor again as well. However, if the govt censors it is against the 1st Amendment and therein illegal. If a private company does it it's "legal" under the current legal framework. If there is going to be censorship, I'd rather there be the cloud of illegality attached to it rather than have it be "just a business decision". At least then it can be another line item in the new "High Crimes of King George V2.0" when it comes to that point.

In a decision between two shitty choices, I'd rather the inevitable shitty choice be useful for something in the future.
__________________
Days since DD0311 has advocated violence against "the left": 0
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 15 December 2017, 09:46
Shark0311 Shark0311 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: IL
Posts: 470
For me the problem is about allowing the ISPs to artificially create scarcity by limiting quality access to services other than their own.

Blockbuster was a powerhouse corporation in the US. They built a huge franchise model that all but killed the family video store and charged huge fees for late movies or "rewinding" fees prior to DVDs. Then comes Netflix, Tivo, and cable digital rental. Blockbuster's business model tanks at an alarming rate and in a last ditch effort creates a digital content delivery model. Verizon "partners" with them and puts the service on all of their handsets which cannot be deleted but everyone uses google play or itunes even though they are bombarded with the big blue ticket on their phone. Verizon now throttles google and itunes and prioritizes blockbuster traffic. This happened.

Blockbuster is alive and well and so is the mentality that made it the power house that it once was i.e. late fees and high cost due to the scarcity of competition.

http://www.blockbuster.com/

Remember when Microsoft Word cost $299 per user license, internet browsers were $50 dollars a pop and mid size business accounting software was $30k with an 8k annual upgrade? I don't miss those days.

Artificial scarcity is not a good thing for consumers but it is a viable and well used business tactic for those that have the ability to create it and we are giving power back to the companies that have mastered its use.

Last edited by Shark0311; 15 December 2017 at 09:55.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 15 December 2017, 10:34
Keganswar Keganswar is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Behind enemy lines NY
Posts: 1,211
RIP Kody
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 15 December 2017, 11:16
Shark0311 Shark0311 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: IL
Posts: 470
This clown is going to cost the next viable candidate for POTUS the election. His absolute disdain is palpable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79nQqqbrXxg

Be kind rewind and enjoy a blockbuster night!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 15 December 2017, 12:24
DC's Avatar
DC DC is offline
Holy Diver
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: West Coast
Posts: 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyDog0311 View Post
I think it's time to re-examine this idea of private businesses getting to do whatever they want...
That's something I never thought I would hear from DD0331.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 15 December 2017, 13:20
GPC's Avatar
GPC GPC is offline
Bitter old man.
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: LOFD
Posts: 5,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by wowzers View Post
Can some of you tech savvy folks please explain the implications for this recent vote to this hillbilly?
Mongolian midget porn will go up.
Need I say more?
__________________
Steel Rain Brings The Pain!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 15 December 2017, 13:25
Silverbullet's Avatar
Silverbullet Silverbullet is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bunker
Posts: 14,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by GPC View Post
Mongolian midget porn will go up.
Need I say more?
Sharky hardest hit...
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 15 December 2017, 13:26
Silverbullet's Avatar
Silverbullet Silverbullet is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bunker
Posts: 14,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by GPC View Post
Mongolian midget porn will go up.
Sharky hardest hit...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:50.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
SOCNET