(U.S.) last day to tell fcc not to implement misleading "restoring internet freedom" act

[kour]

just so you know...

[kour]

aaand it's repealed - r.i.p. 

[LanghamP]

It's just one group of powerful companies fighting with another group of powerful companies. I don't know how it affects us because while companies aren't suppose to discriminate packet information, in a way they do by simply not hosting contrary information.

Facebook and Youtube benefited from net neutrality because they could transport data on the cheap whereas now they'll be likely to pay for usage. Cable companies would moan having to charge everyone the same rate regardless of usage, but now of course they can charge rather like heavy trucks being tolled for the highway.

Forcing companies to be terse with their data is a good thing because we don't have to wait through 40 megs of slobbery data before we get to read what we originally wanted to read. It's like getting junk mail but you're paying for the postage.

Net neutrality shouldn't be confused with being data agnostic. The former charges by volume whereby the later isn't a factor since packets are encrypted (your website does encrypt, doesn't it. Yes? Yes!!??).

Youtube, Netflix, and Facebook are profitable because their data volume is paid for by everyone, and yet they gatekeeper information unlike a public utility. Screw 'em; if they want to profit off the public yet gatekeeper information like a private company, then they can pay for their own throughput.

[dmethvin]

With Facebook you can decide just not to go there. I visit FB about once every 3 or 4 months, the site just gives me the creeps the way it works. You can choose to use Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo, or your ISP for email. You can even run your own mail server if you want. 

Internet service providers and cell phone networks are in a special position. They are government-sanctioned oligopolies. There are only so many companies that can run wires to your house and only so much of the airwaves dedicated to cell phones. In return for their exclusive grants they are supposed to be regulated by the government.

In the past for things like voice communications, there has been the concept of a common carrier that the company is simply a conduit for the stuff going through it.That was the idea of "net neutrality", they were not supposed to distinguish based on the purpose of the data. They were just supposed to get the data from point A to point B. That's not really a lot of restriction for a company that has been granted a special position.

The problem (for ISPs) is that net neutrality doesn't give them enough profit knobs to turn in order to get money. Most people in urban and suburban areas already have internet that's "fast enough". In the places where it isn't yet fast, such as rural areas, it's expensive for them to run lines--that's not low hanging fruit! They want to make more money off the unused bandwidth that's going to the houses they already serve. 

ISPs see all these services like Netflix, Amazon, and Google providing services that go through them and they have decided it's "only fair" that a middleman providing a bit pipe between them should be able to tap some of that money. The easiest way to do that with the least amount of uproar is not to directly charge consumers, but charge the value providers like Netflix. I think that's what we'll see first. That already happened in the past, Netflix was essentially being blackmailed by Comcast before net neutrality was passed in 2015 and no doubt we'll see that return.

If back-end fees do come to pass again, I'd like to see companies like Netflix tack on a visible "Comcast surcharge" to their monthly membership fees to make it clear what's going on. That would get consumers mad about the lack of net neutrality.

[LanghamP]

One of my greatest irritations is when someone says the average person/driver/whatever is stupid. To me, the person saying that (and most people will say that) is just so willfully contemptuous and undoubtedly racist, as if the average person is too stupid to think for themselves, and will simply follow the party line especially if information is placed in front of them like a spoon fed baby. It's almost as if these elitist would want to take away the vote for average people. Does that remind you of anything? Maybe something the post-bellum Era, maybe somewhere in the South?! Maybe???

However, we do know better educated introspective people, especially men, are more prone to being victims of scams than other more canny demographics.

Whenever someone argues with me, I always ask myself and the person presenting, "well, does he have a point". I mean, if it makes sense then it's probably a better worldview of our social constructs.

It like asking, "should gay men give blood?" The answer is obvious, no of course not since they are extremely strong vectors of diseases; no other group of blood givers is more likely to contaminate the blood supply, and study and study supports this. And yet social media will remove and ban (or demonetize) this question/answer even if it is posted by respected doctors brandishing peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Here's another popular opinion made unpopular by social media.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/12/18/youtube-temporarily-bans-europeans-from-viewing-cernovich-documentary-on-migrant-rape-crisis/

Does he have a point? Maybe. Is he wrong? Maybe. Is it fun to read Breitbart? Of course. Do I believe the crap it expouses? Occasionally, because messenger and message are different.

The point is, YouTube isn't required to host contrary video to its corporate diety-ship, yet moans when they can't be subsidized for using cable lines. If we're going to subsidize them then I say they can't censor. That even includes porn. Especially porn; you want net neutrality, then you gotta host everything legal, and hey you paying for storage seems appropriate.

 

[Shad0z]

sucks but what exactly does it change