71–80 of 388 posts
Best argument against NN: Entrenching today's power brokers will not bode well for the future and will kill all of the smaller players.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm against net neutrality. It's essentially a wealth transfer from the infrastructure industry to the ad industry. It's pretty dumb imo.
So if we get rid of net neutrality, we get less ads? That’ll be the day. The “infrastructure industry” huh? The internet, of course, should be treated as a utility.
So it's not less ads, just that some of the profit from the ads would go towards the base infrastructure, which is a good thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some organizations such as the Wikimedia Foundation, Google, and Facebook believe that their services are more important than others. As such, they consider themselves deserving of cheaper, free, or the "fast lane" internet, especially in less developed areas without sufficient infrastructure to serve all websites. The rationale is that providing a limited set of websites for free is better than if those areas have n…
I want to understand this better, but I can't grasp the concept of a "fast lane" in anything but an artificial sense - how can an ISP create a "fast lane" for a website - can't they only create "slow lanes" for everything BUT "fast laned" websites?
Is anyone actually against net neutrality? I don't think I've ever seen a con argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's not wrong. People are lead by how they feel and not facts. There are responsible ways to make pleas to emotion on a large scale and there are manipulative things that bad actors can do with it as well. You will not win hearts and minds with pure rationality when your opponent doesn't give a shit about that. Emotional lives are just as real as cold hard facts, and as we've seen, can be so real that they manifest…
>You will not win hearts and minds with pure rationality when your opponent doesn't give a shit about that. Where are these hardline radical pro-Comcast types? >There are responsible ways to make pleas to emotion on a large scale and there are manipulative things that bad actors can do with it as well. Frankly, the net neutrality movement has failed that test miserably in this latest campaign in particular. It's disa…
We lost this battle a long time ago[1][2] is the real issue. However, they don't have absolute control over sending electrons around in a box, nor how distributed systems work in absolute. Innovation has stagnated as an entire generation of the greatest minds build an advertising scheme. The internet is fucking broken in a bizare way. As it continues to fragment, it will be a lot like our transition from AOL to an open web.
People not in the know will be given palpable bullshit to keep the fat cats in slow braised bushmeat. People with a pursuit of knowledge and innovation will move to platforms that are harder to access by the masses, fragmenting the utility we have now but giving a lot of power to the people on the inside track.
This is already happening in restrictive places like China as well as basically everywhere else. Hiding information and connections in aggregates of other data. Building out online dark nets as well as physical mesh networks. I see the LimeSDR playing a huge role as the web gets shittier than it is. An open source transceiver on a chip that can do everything from UHF to 5G, you can connect to an existing provider, but at any sort of density removes the need to rely on single points like cell tower networks. Also expanding to use any bandwidth or multiple with a software modification. I just bought their $3000 "Network in a Box"[3] and am building an LTE neighborhood darknet (3 Kilometers!) with my buddy. We are going to get repeaters and DIY phones to anyone in range and grow from there.
The alternatives to the system don't exist yet, but innovation will not stop just because they want to sell more Thor DVDs. I'm pretty tired of it too and it feels bullshit to say "this" is over, but it is. Now we just have to take what we've learned, build something better, and learn how to bring the ignorant on our side to prevent it from happening again.
I know it won't happen, but it is an absolute fact that no one actually needs facebook. Every single one of us could shut down our account at the same time and change the world in a big way.
There isn't a google replacement yet (don't tell me DuckDuckGo), but maybe we can bring webrings back.
[1] https://thenextweb.com/eu/2017/06/09/pirate-bay-founder-weve... [2] https://webfoundation.org/2017/04/sir-tim-berners-lee-respon... [3] https://www.crowdsupply.com/lime-micro/limenet
Is anyone actually against net neutrality? I don't think I've ever seen a con argument.
I’m against net neutrality if you are allowed to choose your ISP. Where I live (Boston) I only have Comcast. Trees even block satellite. If we allowed any ISP to lease the line from Comcast and let me choose service, it would be different. As I only have Comcast, it is a monopoly and I’m opposed. But with true competition, I could choose from a range of ISP’s, even theoretically free broadband that would be ad suppor…
Best argument for NN: Let's freeze things now (and saddle every startup/mom'n'pop ISP with Ma Bell-style regulation) so the oligarchs don't become ever more powerful Best argument against NN: Entrenching today's power brokers will not bode well for the future and will kill all of the smaller players.
Network neutrality is not Ma Bell style regulation. NN will not freeze things. Don't know which oligarchs you are referring to, but any NN laws are unlikely to stop them 'garching.
Killing NN is unlikely to kill all the small players. In fact they might rather thrive by using NN as a competitive tool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There really isn't a sound argument against net neutrality. Many do argue that the FCC shouldn't have the authority to regulate the internet, and often argue that idea to subtly change the subject. If someone argues to abolish something, they should either argue in favor of a replacement, or argue that that thing should not exist at all. Unfortunately, I haven't heard even a flawed version of either argument. Another…
If we want something for the public good, it should be publically funded.
But yeah it might be nice to make it just work well, without any respect for and to whom or what. All that matter is how. It should work well, how do we do that?
Some cities are deciding to build their own infra. Good. Now if only they'd explicitly adopt their surrounding rural areas and include them in the program. Because this same FCC is dropping the subsidies for rural internet and telephone.