The Tragic Death of Net Neutrality - Page 16 - Politics and Economics

I feel like the argument for net nuetrality should be simple to message.

How many people like their cable/isp company??
Now what if I told you I’m going to give them WAY more power to **** you over and WAY less reason to care what you think about them??

11-24-2017 , 07:38 PM

#378

Loki

binary duo

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 12,772

The government protects our right to free speech.

Net neutrality was the government protecting our right to free speech online. Trump murdered that right and now faceless corporations will control that right.

The end.

Or if that doesn't work to your right wing friends:

Jeff Bezos could buy all the internet backbones and stop you from seeing Fox or Breitbart. How great does that sound?

11-24-2017 , 11:42 PM

#379

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

Uh, with basic cable, you don't get access to literally all TV content anywhere ever. The same is not true with basic internet access. Your argument is invalid

That’s exactly the point

11-25-2017 , 04:19 AM

#380

Lawnmower Man

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 4,457

https://twitter.com/eastdakota/statu...90344624304130

11-25-2017 , 04:04 PM

#381

cuserounder

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 8,217

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

This would be the A+ strategy to getting net neutrality back. Liberal billionaires cut off a red state from seeing Fox and Breitbart. Conservatives realize net neutrality is good.

Of course, they'll look for a way to get Fox and Breitbart constitutional protection while still allowing Comcast and Verizon to do whatever the hell they want.*

* as long as it doesn't impact Fox or Breitbart

11-26-2017 , 12:21 PM

#382

microbet

Solar Powered

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 56,665

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Furnace creek has wifi. Are you sure she's on cel?

It was Eureka Valley Sand Dunes and it turns out she had texted right before entering the park. There was no reception at the site.

It was a beautiful place and I'm not much of a desert guy. My motorcycle (a street/road bike) was not a good choice. The last 15 miles of rocky, washboard and sandy roads, and a flat tire were not great. It worked out ok though and a little adversity makes things more memorable anyway. The ride before those last 15 was pretty great.

11-27-2017 , 08:33 AM

#383

bobman0330

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 24,234

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

Or if that doesn't work to your right wing friends:

Jeff Bezos could buy all the internet backbones and stop you from seeing Fox or Breitbart. How great does that sound?

This would be a violation of antitrust law.

11-27-2017 , 09:15 AM

#384

bobman0330

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 24,234

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddw8

https://arstechnica.com/information-...ed/?comments=1

From this article each satellite will have a downlink capacity of 17 to 23 Gbps. Given that a particular point on earth will have los to at most 2 or 3 satellites at once that's just not enough bandwidth to provide service anywhere with any sort of population density.

I'm sure that they have grander ambitions down the road, but version 1 of the spacex constellation is not going to be competing against comcast in cities for sure.

Thanks, this is interesting. According to this article about the FCC filing, each satellite is supposed to have a coverage radius of 1060km, or 3.5 million sq km, which is about 1/146 of the Earth's surface area. If they launch 4425 satellites for their first-gen constellation, that would give them an average of 30 satellites in the sky at any given time, presumably further concentrated in inclinations with lots of people in them. Still agree though that it doesn't seem like nearly enough to displace landlines.

It still could be the case though that Google has decided that launching satellites is faster or more cost-efficient way of getting internet to people than building out fiber lines. You can always just launch more satellites to add subscribers as long as you have the orbits and wireless spectrum for them.

11-29-2017 , 03:25 PM

#385

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Complaining about Twitter bias, Ajit Pai raises the question: does he actually know what net neutrality is?

Quote:

Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, blasted Twitter on Tuesday for what he said was a push to “discriminate” against conservatives, during an aggressive defense of his agency’s plan to repeal net neutrality rules.

Speaking during an event hosted by the R Street Institute, a conservative think tank, Pai accused Twitter of hypocrisy for its criticism of the FCC's plan to repeal the Obama-era regulation.

“When it comes to a free and open Internet, Twitter is part of the problem,” Pai said. “The company has a viewpoint and uses that viewpoint to discriminate.”

Ignoring for the moment that he's talking about a site that gives blue checkmarks to Nazis - does he think net neutrality is, like, a fairness doctrine???

11-29-2017 , 03:33 PM

#386

Namath12

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 55,849

I'm hesitant to call him dumb given his credentials but he certainly seems really dumb.

And he's also a massive hypocrite if he truly believes what he said, because he thinks Comcast and Verizon should be able to do whatever the **** they want with THEIR Internet backbone but Twitter should not be able to do whatever the **** they want with THEIR platform?

11-29-2017 , 03:57 PM

#387

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

Complaining about Twitter bias, Ajit Pai raises the question: does he actually know what net neutrality is?

Ignoring for the moment that he's talking about a site that gives blue checkmarks to Nazis - does he think net neutrality is, like, a fairness doctrine???

He's also incredibly lame

Quote:

Then the chairman refuted singer Cher, who had argued that the plan will shut some Americans out of broadband service.

Pai used a line from one of the iconic singer's own tunes to argue the current regulations are the problem, hindering the growth of smaller broadband providers.

"By turning back time, so to speak, and returning Internet regulation to the pre-2015 era, we will expand broadband networks and bring high-speed Internet access to more Americans, not fewer," he said.

The chairman also tackled the online opinions of actor Mark Ruffalo, who portrays the Hulk in Thor: Ragnarok and other Marvel films. Ruffalo had tweeted that "Taking away #NetNeutrality is the Authoritarian dream. Consolidating information in the hands of a few controlled by a few. Dangerous territory.”

Pai quipped that "I will confess when I saw this tweet I was tempted to just say “Hulk . . . wrong” and move on. But I’ve seen similar points made elsewhere, including in one e-mail asking: 'Do you really want to be the man who was responsible for making America another North Korea?'”

The suggestions are absurd, Pai said. "Getting rid of government authority over the Internet is the exact opposite of authoritarianism."

And addressing actress Alyssa Milano's recent tweet that the rollback of the 2015 rules represents a threat to democracy, Pai said, "I’m threatening our democracy? Really? I’d like to see the evidence that America’s democratic institutions were threatened by a Title I framework, as opposed to a Title II framework, during the Clinton Administration, the Bush Administration, and the first six years of the Obama Administration."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...ulk/902512001/

11-29-2017 , 04:09 PM

#388

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

Quote:

Ars Technica reports on Comcast’s statement of net neutrality:

Starting in 2014, the webpage, corporate.comcast.com/openinternet/open-net-neutrality, contained this statement: “Comcast doesn’t prioritize Internet traffic or create paid fast lanes.” That statement remained on the page until April 26 of this year. But on April 27, the paid prioritization pledge was nowhere to be found on that page and remains absent now.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...t-neutrality/#

11-29-2017 , 04:13 PM

#389

Namath12

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 55,849

Even that statement was meaningless because it doesn't prevent them from deciding to do so in the future absent net neutrality rules which are going bye bye.

11-29-2017 , 05:00 PM

#390

lostmypw

enthusiast

Join Date: Mar 2017 Posts: 97

predictit still has this as only 65% chance of getting repealed

what are the paths to preventing the repeal of NN? Realistically is it only the one republican who can potentially vote against it?

11-29-2017 , 05:18 PM

#391

Namath12

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 55,849

THIS is Ajit Pai's FCC

12-12-2017 , 09:01 PM

#392

Namath12

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 55,849

Last night before net neutrality is killed

12-14-2017 , 08:29 AM

#393

estefaniocurry

adept

Join Date: Apr 2017 Posts: 1,165

Last time to post this: **** Comcast!

12-14-2017 , 11:50 AM

#394

EddyB66

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 26,767

Can anyone tell me what the pro argument is for getting rid of it?

12-14-2017 , 11:54 AM

#395

tomdemaine

Just tries harder

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 20,065

Quote:

Originally Posted by EddyB66

Can anyone tell me what the pro argument is for getting rid of it?

Congress Took $101 Million In Donations From The ISP Industry

Drain that swamp!

12-14-2017 , 12:22 PM

#396

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by EddyB66

Can anyone tell me what the pro argument is for getting rid of it?

We maximize freedom for everyone by increasing the freedom of massive corporations to exploit their customers.

12-14-2017 , 01:11 PM

#397

lostmypw

enthusiast

Join Date: Mar 2017 Posts: 97

Can we now pressure the ISPs to block alt right websites like the dailystormer?

Or are there still FTC laws that require they provide access to all sites?