61–70 of 121 posts
That's amazing that a government would so blatantly go against the public interest. Your politicians might as well just admit they work for corporations instead of citizens. At least they're not implying they think people are stupid.
The problem is more that the public isn't interested. Only a small percentage of people know what NN even is.
Here's 100k, NN is bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe running with net neutrality should be the next ISP innovation? It's clear that there's enough consumer market demand that they could make money from it, I don't understand where the ISP's tunnel vision of "only way to innovate is if net neutrality is killed" comes from.
If there is a law or federal rule, that usually implies there are not sufficient market forces behind whatever we still think should/shouldn't be done.
Market forces do not affect large telecoms.
I soured up on Net Neutrality after seeking what YouTube/Facebook/Twitter/Reddit did to silence voices that they don't like on their platforms. How does net neutrality matter if what travels on a perfectly neutral net is controlled anyway, actually controlled much more effectively, by a very few with agenda that goes far beyond just greed for money? "Don't open and judge my TCP/IP packets. But, I will open and judge…
> How does net neutrality matter if what travels on a perfectly neutral net is controlled anyway, actually controlled much more effectively, by a very few with agenda that goes far beyond just greed for money? Without Net Neutrality it becomes harder to choose platforms that don't censor or censor less. Especially since non-censoring platforms will tend to have less revenue to spend on access to customers due to pres…
Net Neutrality has been a non-issue at best, or hypocritical at worse, for the content providers, in light of blatant censorship and political agenda carried out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the great tragedy of American democracy through all its history. One camp sees that there are big businesses that have achieved rentier positions in the economy and advocates passing laws or using force to punish them. The other camp sees that it is usually federal rules + global competition which created behemoths in the first place and advocates against further restrictive laws. The two camps fight about wh…
While I agree with the conclusion that the problems are left to fester, I don't think that those two camps has really existed like that for a long while now. Both camps are in desperate need to have close connection with big businesses during election time, so what they do is employing different tactics to siphon private money into politics. One camp does this by back rooms deal and government contracts, positioning…
For example in the civil war era you had northern opinions which wanted tariffs, more navy power, etc. and saw plantations as rentiers on "property" they should not have ever owned. In the other camp you had southerners who opposed federal restrictions on trade and were very conscience of the competition between global powers, with England wanting cotton yet also outlawing the gulf stream slave trade.
And I should have been more articulate: I am not refuting the parent post about when perhaps the current camps formed. Just that the formation of such camps is not unusual in American history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And when ISPs eventually resort to requiring you insert a root certificate to use the internet at all, your ISP will judge you.
Sure, but it's hypocritical for Google/Facebook/Twitter/Reddit to complain about someone else judging it in future, while they are judging it today with impunity. We, as people, have same influence on current Google/Facebook/Twitter/Reddit censorship as we do on future Comcast/Verizon/AT&T/Charter censorship... none what so ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Youtube won't be able to open and judge your video uploads if you can't afford to upload a video with your ISP.
YouTube will still judge me, even if I use Comcast cable or Verizon 4G to upload the data.
NN means your packets get there. The TOS of a specific site has nothing to do with it.
That's amazing that a government would so blatantly go against the public interest. Your politicians might as well just admit they work for corporations instead of citizens. At least they're not implying they think people are stupid.
The problem is more that the public isn't interested. Only a small percentage of people know what NN even is.
Isn't that why one has a government, so that we don't have to worry about taking care of everything and can live our lives?
Governments should do what's best for the people who have elected them, and I don't see how anyone can think that being the only country in the world where you don't have net neutrality is something good for anyone (but a handful of corporations).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's cheap to comment. You and I just did it now (max time 5-10 min), just like it's cheap to participate in mail-in vote ballots as a citizen
Sorry citizen, your signature doesn't match the signature we have on file. Better luck next cycle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [..] economic illogicality of an enterprise not being allowed to negotiate prices with its customers. See, that's where your argument makes no sense. ISPs don't want to argue prices with their customers. They want to extort businesses that have never decided to be their customers. And you're assuming peoples' motives in the face of these people telling you that you're wrong: I actually don't have grudge with my loc…
http://gizmodo.com/the-secret-deals-that-mean-you-have-to-wa... The big fish already do pay because ISPs hold their customers hostage. They've "opened new revenue channels" by realizing that they can just pay a small amount for lobbying efforts so FCC and friends will leave them alone to make a larger amount from content sources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just a microcosm of the greater political climate created in the US over the past 40 or so years. Business interests completely control every single legislative decision made. We're all just along for the ride now.
Can it be still called a democracy then?
The U.S. was invented at a time of monarchy. Three things it innovated were polyarchy (a ruling class of many rather than one, a king), a written constitution (power comes from people who grant a revocable mandate of authority to the polyarchy, rather than mandate from heaven to the monarch), and one person one vote. Of course who gets to vote is not by any means democratic: you had to be citizen, be a man, be white, and own land.
It's become much more democratized since then, on paper. And it could become a democracy at any moment.
However if you look at the ethnic and economic make up of the country compared to their representatives, the polyarchy is still overwhelmingly landed elite, male, and white. The average net worth of a Congressperson is around $7 million. And there's no meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans when that's broken down, so I'd say we have a one party system with two factions. It's distinctly non-democratic, still, in practice. And it even looks more like an evangelical prosperity theology driven church than a democracy.
But most people don't vote. And most voters, vote party line. It's a tribal system, most voters are deeply ignorant of issues. They're sufficiently happy being peasants and serfs, and having a polyarchy of lords rule them.