Net Neutrality

[The Conservative]

I didn't notice anything magical when NN went into place. My prices didn't go down, my service didn't get better. I'm not clear that it did anything, really.

Frankly, the more I hear the two different opinions, the more muddled the conversation gets. I suspect both sides are being hyperbolic to the extreme, making it confusing for the rest of us.

No need to re-create your giant walls of text (both sides.) I've read and understand them.

It's just hard to discern fact from opinion, since the difference between 2015 and 2017, cost and experience wise, is not really different for me.

Nor I, if anything it has gotten more expensive for less.

[Speaker to Animals]

Question:

We saw a few months ago how Google basically stole the Dailystormer domain and colluded with Cloudfront to take down a website they found objectionable.

What's to stop ISPs from deciding that somebody's content is objectionable and throttling all internet traffic to and from that site to the point where it's essentially unusable and unviewable?

Yeah, you might hate dailystormer and rejoice in their having their domain stolen from them to shut it down, but it doesn't have to be just Dailystormer. It could be anybody these corporations find objectionable, for any reason now. It could be this very forum, actually.

[Speaker to Animals]

The difference for me was that I could stream Netflix again. That was cool while it lasted, I guess. Oh well.

[DBTrek]

I only see one hyperbolic, panicked, sky is falling side here.
Same one I see on FaceBook.

So if there’s another side freaking out I’ve yet to find it.

[TheReal_ND]

THE SALT MUST FLOW



NETFLIX WATCHERS ON SUICIDE WATCH

[clubgop]

Netflix hand-delivered 256 pages (pdf) to the US government this week arguing that Comcast shouldn’t be allowed to acquire Time Warner Cable. “The proposed merger puts at risk the end-to-end principle that has characterized the internet and been a key driver in the creation of the most important communication platform in history,” Netflix’s lawyers wrote.

The streaming video company’s filing provides much more detail about its negotiations with Comcast earlier this year that led it to pay for more direct access to Comcast’s internet customers. “In Netflix’s experience, there are four ISPs that have the market power to engage in degradation strategies to harm OVDs,” Netflix wrote, referring to internet service providers (ISPs) intentionally slowing down traffic from online video distributors (OVDs). “Two of those four propose to merge in this transaction.”

https://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story- ... t-traffic/


^^^ That's the OPPOSITE of competition, sweet little meat puppets. Walk away from Reason.com. It's rotting your brains.

Sigh. What does this have to do with net neutrality? Would you be for this merger with Net neutrality?

[K@th]

I only see one hyperbolic, panicked, sky is falling side here.
Same one I see on FaceBook.

So if there’s another side freaking out I’ve yet to find it.

TC is against NN. By definition, that means hyperbole is involved. You're going to have to give me that point.

[clubgop]

Question:

We saw a few months ago how Google basically stole the Dailystormer domain and colluded with Cloudfront to take down a website they found objectionable.

What's to stop ISPs from deciding that somebody's content is objectionable and throttling all internet traffic to and from that site to the point where it's essentially unusable and unviewable?

Yeah, you might hate dailystormer and rejoice in their having their domain stolen from them to shut it down, but it doesn't have to be just Dailystormer. It could be anybody these corporations find objectionable, for any reason now. It could be this very forum, actually.

I'd rather the ISPs have that power than Silicon valley fucks that run shit now. You really gonna make that argument? The only things standing between us and the ISPs are the googles, Facebook's, and Twitter and thier manifest dedication to free expression and free speech? Really?

[DBTrek]

Question:

What's to stop ISPs from deciding that somebody's content is objectionable and throttling all internet traffic to and from that site to the point where it's essentially unusable and unviewable.

The same anti-trust laws that stopped them pre-2015 would be the obvious answer.

[DBTrek]

ISPs are still beholden to anti-trust and consumer laws, and if a company does disclose any of these practices, the Federal Trade Commission or FCC can step in. The FTC is picking up a lot of power in this entire transaction: The FCC loses its authority to regulate broadband once it's no longer considered a telecommunications service, allowing the FTC to take over.

While the FTC can't impose actual rules over ISPs, it can report back to Congress if it uncovers issues that negatively affect consumers. The FCC and FTC have joint authority to investigate anti-competitive behavior, but overall, the proposal is designed to place more power at the feet of the FTC, an agency with significantly less punitive power than the FCC.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/22/net ... posal-isp/

(From a pro NN article no less)

Behold, the fallen sky.