51–60 of 150 posts
I still can't believe that the movement to kill net neutrality was (is?) called "restoring internet freedom". I guess it's a shortening of "restoring internet service providers' freedom"? But the longer form isn't as catchy.
It's freedom... just not for a lot of people.
I still can't believe that the movement to kill net neutrality was (is?) called "restoring internet freedom". I guess it's a shortening of "restoring internet service providers' freedom"? But the longer form isn't as catchy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being unconstrained.
So you’d obviously want to ensure net neutrality then?
It’s controversial to say here but I don’t think it gets discussed enough: Net neutrality only really helps established players. That is not to say it hurts others, but it certainly helps established players.
That’s why they all love it. Facebook, Hulu, Netflix, GitHub, Tumblr, Microsoft. Unestablished unpopular players are not the ones getting throttled. It’s the ones already using tons of bandwidth getting throttled and odds are good most new players bandwidth usage is hardly even noticeable to the ISP. They wouldn’t be touting the joys of something that had the potential to displace them.
The one who would be getting throttled is primarily Netflix, who literally uses over half of the bandwidth of the Internet. Literally slows everything else on the Internet down. Netflix doesn’t want to be throttled, so of course they love net neutrality.
I’m not saying net neutrality is inherently bad, I just don’t think it’s as innately good as a lot of the cheerleaders attest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we can summarize saying it's customers freedom against ISP freedom.
No, that implies companies have the same rights as individual people. They do not and should not as they don’t have the same legal constraints as people. There’s no human equivalent to many of the abilities enjoyed by corporations and corporations don’t die and cannot be imprisoned. They’re also able to raise funds in ways humans may not. The list goes on from there.
I am firmly opposed to "Net Neutrality". Literally everything the government regulates becomes a mess and a boondoggle. Health care, housing, and pensions all the way down to city building codes (I have a friend who needs to replace her windows in San Francisco, and the city government has decreed that they can only use wooden frame windows because of the aesthetics, even though they are more than twice as expensive)…
> "Net Neutrality" is nothing more than an Orwellian named, amorphous and vague idea that nobody really knows what it means. What are you talking about? Net Neutrality isn't complicated at all, it's just saying that Internet providers need to deliver Internet connections without prioritizing or blocking certain sites/connections. The only complication is that telcos and businesses have different ideas about how far i…
There is no "how far it should go" - if you support that ISPs must treat all connections equally, then how can you possibly support zero-rating content? The idea that some people get free access to some sites and others do not is exactly the kind of situation that Net Neutrality is supposed to stop.
"Net Neutrality" should also stop ISPs prioritising video and audio streaming, and also prevent ISPs blocking content you find morally or politically objectionable.
If you admit that there is some latitude to the implementation of "Net Neutrality", then you don't have Net Neutrality, you have some guidelines on what is and what isn't allowed. This is precisely the (uniquely US) problem of codifying theoretical constructs - they cannot work in practice, so time and effort is spend justifying why exceptions to the rule still conform to the original rule. See "hate speech" vs "free speech".
I am firmly opposed to "Net Neutrality". Literally everything the government regulates becomes a mess and a boondoggle. Health care, housing, and pensions all the way down to city building codes (I have a friend who needs to replace her windows in San Francisco, and the city government has decreed that they can only use wooden frame windows because of the aesthetics, even though they are more than twice as expensive)…
The 2015 Open Internet order's rules take up all of 8 pages. You could know what it means if you actually wanted to and were willing to put in a little effort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s also an inevitable consequence. Truth be told, I distrust the part of government that supports “net neutrality” and I distrust the part of government that is against it. Make no mistake, the government is itching to dictate content and tax data transfer.
It's really not. The US gov't can't require censorship like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it is about "restoring internet freedom". It's just that, except in a few large cities, Americans have very little choice about ISP. So there's no way for ISPs to compete for users who care about net neutrality. Edit: Actually, we'd have even more freedom with an Internet version of the FERC rule for open access to electrical transmission lines.[0] > The legal and policy cornerstone of these rules is to remedy…
What's your definition of freedom?
Is freedom to build whatever you want without having to pay gatekeepers important or is freedom from rules important?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe that anyone here, without looking it up, could explain what exactly "net neutrality" means, without falling back on talking points and vague aspirational language, rather than what actually is written in the regulations. For starters, the FCC did an end run around Congress because they couldn't get Congress to pass it, so they had to take previous regulations intended for telephone service and cram a…
How is internet traffic meaningfully different from phone network traffic? It's all signals carrying data over transmission cables...
The phone network carries only one type of data - audio - encoded in one particular way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we can summarize saying it's customers freedom against ISP freedom.
No, that implies companies have the same rights as individual people. They do not and should not as they don’t have the same legal constraints as people. There’s no human equivalent to many of the abilities enjoyed by corporations and corporations don’t die and cannot be imprisoned. They’re also able to raise funds in ways humans may not. The list goes on from there.