http://gofccyourself.com (redirect) Edit: If it stays blank after redirect it's because it (FCC's site) can't handle the load, or [conspiracy theory].
Preserve net neutrality and Title II
Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
291–300 of 452 posts
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you live near a city this is often true (at least in the US). However, there are at least two problems with this: 1) often the broadband provided by mobile services is capped and/or much more expensive than the services provided by the 1 or at best 2 non-mobile ISPs you have access to. 2) in rural areas, often you do NOT have access to anything close to the same level of broadband speeds. There are a lot of places…
Why do all people need insanely fast broadband speeds and data download limits? I think the fact that a small percentage of the population wants those speeds should not dictate what the larger percentage of the population has to pay for. NN hurts low-income internet users.
First off, I was neither arguing for nor against net neutrality. I was responding to "With the wide availability of cellular service that provides broadband speeds pretty much everyone in the country has multiple choices of ISP." From a practical standpoint, this is not true for many users.
Secondly, I was in no way referring to "insanely fast broadband speeds and data download limits". I was talking about practical limits. Where I live, if I depended on mobile connectivity for internet service, it would be impractical to do anything that involved any media of any significant size. The connectivity would at best be barely capable, and the data limits and plan costs would make it hideously expensive. Therefore I have pretty much one ISP that can provide me with tolerable service.
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#293http://gofccyourself.com (redirect) Edit: If it stays blank after redirect it's because it (FCC's site) can't handle the load, or [conspiracy theory].
Preserve net neutrality and Title II
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because legislating every conceivable fear and every instance of mass panic will lead to an overly complex and overly burdensome legal system that hampers legitimate activity. In the words of Cicero, "more laws, less justice" When we start having problems with net neutrality, we can legislate against it. As we don't have any such issues, and there is no evidence that we are in imminent threat of net neutrality being…
Do you trust the Trump administration and Ajit Pai to listen to the public at that point? I sure as fuck don't. You're right that I don't know of any instances of the sort of censorship people are afraid of, but once they start happening, I have zero faith that the (current) government will protect consumers' rights.
I'm a big proponent of NN, but do you think it would be popular to screw with people's internet? The "internet is serious business" (these days).
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not American, so please correct me if I'm wrong but I have yet to see any proof of this whole 'sell your internet history' complaint that seems to be blatently copied by everyone without any research. The way I understand it is that ISPs can sell anonymized data from groups of users. Like: people who visit news.ycombinator.com generally also visit stackoverflow. I also don't know how an ISP would get your actual…
The common response to this is that ISPs have access to everything you do (which is true), and that they could sell that (which is false). The regulations being overturned here are ones that have only recently taken effect, and non-anonymized, non-aggregate selling of ISP data is still outlawed by the Cable Communications Act of 1984, which protects subscriber privacy is 47USC § 551[1]. Put simply, neither the most r…
The law section you linked to is concerned with PII, personally identifiable information. But what ISPs are most likely to sell is anonymized browsing data, i.e. when an advertiser goes to display an ad the ISP will tell them what other URLs you've been to but they won't tell the advertiser your name, address, social, etc.
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#296http://gofccyourself.com (redirect) Edit: If it stays blank after redirect it's because it (FCC's site) can't handle the load, or [conspiracy theory].
I support strong net neutrality of Title II oversight of ISP's.
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't understand how latency works at all. If latency to a location is bad, fix it -- that's what you are being paid for. As for bandwidth allocation, that is an entirely other issue that has nothing to do with latency or congestion. You pay for the bandwidth tier you can afford, as an end-user. And business pay proportionate to the amount of bandwidth they require. This need tends to scale directly with customer…
> You don't understand how latency works at all. If latency to a location is bad, fix it -- that's what you are being paid for. Are you serious? There are some cases where latency is a function of a malfunctioning circuit and can be improved, but in general the latency of a circuit for tcp/ip has to do with traffic shaping settings and physical layer technologies/protocols.
I understand how TCP/IP works. Are you saying that latency issues are something that cannot be fixed without creating something analogous to artificial scarcity on content that you stand to profit from?
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you live near a city this is often true (at least in the US). However, there are at least two problems with this: 1) often the broadband provided by mobile services is capped and/or much more expensive than the services provided by the 1 or at best 2 non-mobile ISPs you have access to. 2) in rural areas, often you do NOT have access to anything close to the same level of broadband speeds. There are a lot of places…
Why do all people need insanely fast broadband speeds and data download limits? I think the fact that a small percentage of the population wants those speeds should not dictate what the larger percentage of the population has to pay for. NN hurts low-income internet users.
Allowing ISPs to use publicly supported infrastructure and their natural monopolies to guide consumers towards ISP owned services helps low-income users how?
If 1 or 2 ISPs eventually own all commercial content creation, I can assure you it won't be good for low income internet users.
There are several possible solutions to this, ramped up enforcement of anti-trust laws, forced sharing of last mile infrastructure etc... Net neutrality isn't the only possible fix. Which fix do you prefer?
To your point about not needing fast download speeds. What's considered fast today is just "required to browser the internet" tomorrow. I used to get by with a 28.8kbps modem, but that's not a viable option today.
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
The common response to this is that ISPs have access to everything you do (which is true), and that they could sell that (which is false). The regulations being overturned here are ones that have only recently taken effect, and non-anonymized, non-aggregate selling of ISP data is still outlawed by the Cable Communications Act of 1984, which protects subscriber privacy is 47USC § 551[1]. Put simply, neither the most r…
The law section you linked to is concerned with PII, personally identifiable information. But what ISPs are most likely to sell is anonymized browsing data, i.e. when an advertiser goes to display an ad the ISP will tell them what other URLs you've been to but they won't tell the advertiser your name, address, social, etc.
Agreed, with the caveat that there are also restrictions requiring aggregation as well.
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#300Honest question, but is Net Neutrality the answer to these problems? A few weeks ago on HN, someone made an analogy to water: someone filling their swimming pool should pay more for water than someone showering or cooking with it. This seems to make sense to me, water is a scarce resource and it should be prioritized. Is the same true of the Internet? I absolutely agree that ISPs that are also in the entertainment bu…
Great, I can get behind an anti trust angle! Where's the link to the court case? I don't see any. Where's the link to the petition surrounding this? I don't see any. Where can I see that you, or the people pushing the anti trust angle, has developed any headway into pushing this sort of answer? I haven't seen any.
If the government brings suit, and loses, will they/you continue to point to anti trust law?
"The real problem is X" is fine and good if working on X is anywhere in sight. Yes, X may be the real problem, but generations can be born, grow old, and die while you're waiting for X to be solved.