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].
I support net neutrality
and want its's Title II rules to remain.
Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
341–350 of 452 posts
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#342Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many ISPs do you have to choose from? Personally, I have two: Comcast and AT&T. Comcast has been a nightmare recently, with almost weekly outages and frequent periods of severely degraded bandwidth. AT&T (even their supposed "Fiber" offering) requires a working copper twisted-pair RJ11 outlet where the gateway is to be installed, which I don't have and which would require an electrician and multiple holes in my w…
You are choosing to not use AT&T over holes in the walls of your dwelling required for installation. The free market is working as intended in this case. Most people really don't have a choice. You're just being a prick.
You can always safely leave out the personal jeers, like the guidelines ask.
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#343http://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 net neutrality and want ISP's Title II rules to remain.
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only thing your link says about aggregate data is that PII is not aggregate data, meaning that aggregate data is exempt from these restrictions.
So, that's applicable to every instance except where being provided to the government (section h), and . It's somewhat circular in that regard. Combined with disclosure restrictions, specifically 2(c)(ii), the net result is that only aggregate disclosure is allowed unless specifically permitted by the end users.
My reading of it is that anonymized individual non-PII data, such as browsing history, is allowed to be sold.
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#345Net neutrality is fundamental to free speech. Without net neutrality, big companies could censor your voice and make it harder to speak up online. Net neutrality has been called the “First Amendment of the Internet.” Not just harder. Infinitely more dangerous. Probably the scariest implications for NN being gutted are those around loss of anonymity through the Internet. ISPs who are allowed to sell users' browsing hi…
Your edit makes me wonder if you realize consciously that your rant is completely orthogonal to net neutrality even with your epplanation, and you're just doubling down on deliberate unawareness as a strategy to avoid feeling foolish.
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#346Net neutrality is fundamental to free speech. Without net neutrality, big companies could censor your voice and make it harder to speak up online. Net neutrality has been called the “First Amendment of the Internet.” Not just harder. Infinitely more dangerous. Probably the scariest implications for NN being gutted are those around loss of anonymity through the Internet. ISPs who are allowed to sell users' browsing hi…
>Probably the scariest implications for NN being gutted are those around loss of anonymity through the Internet.
Does it currently exist?
Do something significantly illegal enough online most anywhere and you will be caught. Other than very specialized internet usages that are outside the purview of the common individual, the only question currently is if the government can justify going after you, not if they can go after you. Right now if you point out corruption against a local government they likely won't go after you due to lack of resources, not technical limitations. Point out major corruption at a high enough government scale and you will be caught (especially given that one will have to go outside of legal channels to do so).
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#347http://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].
Make sure that those of us in the masses have access to a net neutral internet, under Title II.
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
But you base where you live on the infrastructure available. If high internet speeds are important to you, then moving to a city with better options makes sense. If you want to lie in the boondocks, then that's more important to you than internet.
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1) happens naturally in most markets. Without net-neutrality I believe that it would be harder for these companies to be dethroned if something better came along. In what way would it be harder for them to be dethroned exactly?
Remove net neutrality or any semblance of it. ISPs now control who has access to their customers. Big businesses (Netflix, Amazon, Google, Apple, Microsoft) can afford these costs. DuckDuckGo cannot. Wikipedia cannot. Startup #9 cannot. Yeah, sure, the data maybe still gets through. But now it's getting through at a reduced rate and (potentially) lower quality of service. This prevents new businesses from being able…
So why wasn't this a problem for the 30+ years we had no NN rules in place?
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#350Trumps appointees disappoint me a lot. This guy and the one over the EPA
Ajit Pai was technically appointed to the FCC by Obama. (Though this panel of 5 people can have only at-most 3 people of the same part affiliation on it at any given time). What Trump did was appoint Ajit the chairman of the FCC. The FCC only has 3 people on it right now (2 R, 1 D), with 2 vacant seats.
He was recommended by Mitch McConnell - its customary to appoint the Republican recommendation.