41–50 of 423 posts
What is the most effective avenue to voice my concerns?
Would these letters be of any use?
Sorry I'm not buying into the panic. Between wide scale TLS deployment and larger swaths of bandwidth available, I'd rather see free market solutions so these regulatory powers can't be abused. Net neutrality only matters if your ISP can decrypt your traffic and there is a limited share of bandwidth available.
TLS doesn't hide destination IP addresses
edit: It occurs to me that I'm apparently goddamn old now, and a good few HNers of 2017 might be too young to remember the whole Comcast/Sandvine/BitTorrent mess [1], viz. the history of this not being a hypothetical concern.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandvine#Network_neutrality_de...
Ajit Pai: The answer to the first is we're not sure. We've never seen them before and that's part of the reason why I thought the rule in particular was, that was adopted in 2015, was very premature banning something that's simply didn't exist.
I took the time to read Ajit's argument here. It's completely mislead. If murder hadn't happened in a certain area yet, would it be "too preemptive" to outlaw it? Fast lanes DO exist in other countries right now. This is outrageous.
Since we can't vote on this and our representatives aren't voting on it either, it's worth a shot.
[0]: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/do-not-repeal-net-...
If what is happening now is that the 2015 vote for net neutrality rules is to be repealed, couldn't a later FCC vote again to return to the 2015 rules?
"There is something not right about a few unelected FCC officials making such vast determinations about the future of the internet." Is she talking about 2015 or 2017?
Bullshit is so easy to spread. People willing to peddle falsehoods often end up winning if they can just repeat the lies until everyone else gets tired of repeating themselves. Network neutrality started in the early 2000s because some ISPs started blocking VPNs and other services. Network Neutrality was simply how the internet had always worked prior to that. The FCC wanted to take a light hand toward regulation but…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Domain experts are overwhelmingly in favor of NN.
Actually, a weighted average shows 3 times as many against as for http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii
Less than half agree or strongly agree and in the weighted chart, a whopping 41% are Uncertain, which suggests they recognize that they don't know much about the subject. Many of the comments by Agree and Strongly Agree respondents indicate they don't understand the subject fully.
>Reach out to the rest of the FCC now. Tell them they can’t take away internet openness without a fight. How? As this article mentions, their comment system had issues (spam and DDoS) and the only other avenue I've seen is to beg our representatives (who aren't part of the December vote) to do _something_. It was a clean and concise piece, but I was hoping that an insider would provide a new course of action. I've se…
This may be about the Internet, but doing online "protest" will get us nowhere. Real protest means people going to the streets and making the government afraid of real violence. Other than that I don't see any way out.
Don't pretend we've exhausted all alternatives to violence -- we haven't. We've barely done any of the things that have been successful in the past at causing change. Suggesting otherwise reduces our power, it doesn't enhance it.
Sometimes we lose ground before we make progress. But that doesn't mean we've been defeated.
Nick Gillespie: Your plan will, according to a write up in Politico, and I think this is accurate, it quote, "will jettison rules that prohibit internet service providers from blocking or slowing web traffic or creating so called paid internet fast lanes." Question for you, do you think fast lanes will become a thing? What is the value of a internet fast lane? Ajit Pai: The answer to the first is we're not sure. We'v…
But even with murder, the law doesn't stop murders before they happen, but rather only acts retroactively (and that is for good reason).
> "Fast lanes DO exist in other countries right now."
But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem.
I feel helpless. In this and in many things that this administration has brought on. Vote? Yeah, right. Sign a petition? Yeah, right. I feel like unless there are real ramifications to the people doing this stuff, nothing we do matters.
This will change some day, but today the Republican party has lost its mind and morals.
To be clear, I'm not calling you a dope.