Jump to content


Photo

Free Speech .

speech rights english enlightenment

  • Please log in to reply
754 replies to this topic

#41 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FOB Chitcago
  • Interests:Killing, killing is the solution!

Posted 10 August 2018 - 0819 AM

You're familiar with the term "stealing thunder", all passing this net neutrality act will do is allow outraged baby-boomers and other normies to go back to sleep.  And the globo-homo megacorps will continue to act as unaccountable pseudo-governments, possibly deliberately, under the same form of legalistic equivocating deception as Five Eyes.  S/F....Ken M


  • 0

#42 Der Zeitgeist

Der Zeitgeist

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,168 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Captive to Russia

Posted 10 August 2018 - 0845 AM

You're familiar with the term "stealing thunder", all passing this net neutrality act will do is allow outraged baby-boomers and other normies to go back to sleep.  And the globo-homo megacorps will continue to act as unaccountable pseudo-governments, possibly deliberately, under the same form of legalistic equivocating deception as Five Eyes.  S/F....Ken M

 

Is this guy for real? I mean, seriously...  :blink:


  • 0

#43 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 10 August 2018 - 0850 AM

The FCC did once have what was called the Fairness Doctrine. In theory, tv and radio were supposed to present neutral and balanced news programming. In practice, it ended up as across the board liberal bias not balanced by competing opinions or even acknowledgement of editorial bias.

Net neutrality aint anything like that.
  • 0

#44 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,560 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 10 August 2018 - 0850 AM

Im not really sure what the point of Net Neutrality is. There is not a publishing house alive, or newspaper, that hasnt actually printed SOMETHING contentious at one point or another. It reminds me of what Hunter S Thompson said about objective journalism, many aspire to it, but who can find it? :D


  • 0

#45 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 10 August 2018 - 0910 AM

Big ISPs do not like net neutrality because they cannot discriminate between sites. They want to play favourites with online partners. This means big businesses like Amazon will get cheaper rates and faster service than small, comparatively poor sites like Tank Net. Even without deliberately discriminating against politically unfavoured people, like firearms enthusiasts, small fry like small, politcal sites may get screwed. Net neutrality will prevent that.
  • 0

#46 Der Zeitgeist

Der Zeitgeist

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,168 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Captive to Russia

Posted 10 August 2018 - 1012 AM

Im not really sure what the point of Net Neutrality is. There is not a publishing house alive, or newspaper, that hasnt actually printed SOMETHING contentious at one point or another. It reminds me of what Hunter S Thompson said about objective journalism, many aspire to it, but who can find it? :D

 

See, that's what R01 is trying to explain. What you described IS NOT net neutrality.

 

Net neutrality is about issues like when my ISP may want to sell me a package deal including things like the crappy German streaming service Maxdome, which then wouldn't count against my data cap and may be faster on this ISP. However, I prefer using Netflix, which has to be treated exactly the same by this ISP (in terms of speed, data cap and so on) because we have net neutrality.


  • 0

#47 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,528 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 10 August 2018 - 1013 AM

And here's another one who doesn't know what net neutrality means.
 
I always thought that it was just the usual "RAH RAH, Obama, leftist, socialist, evil" argument, but it seems R011 is right and they really just don't know and think it's something about "neutrality" in the sense of "impartiality of viewpoints".

IT gear costs money. High speed internet cost more money. We have new optics that we can shoot 100 gig signals 35 miles over a single LC pair of fibers (single mode). They're $35,000 per module. That's not even the router or the fiber infrastructure.

New Fancy internet connectivity costs money. The fiber costs money. The switching gear costs money. Compare high speed networks with roads. If you're going to charge a flat rate, then you should be fine with a 120,000 lb truck paying the same for a toll road as a moped. If the company that built the network has a bunch of mopeds that want to run on it, then anyone running a large over weight vehicle should be not allowed to use that road.

More over, we have this new tech which lets us perform traffic forming. In a sense, IP routing takes the shortest route to a destination based on the routing tables. MPLS lets network admins route the heavy traffic, say like streaming content, the long way around if the short route is busy. It also lets you route preferred data to a set of links. Different types of data are high or low latency tolerant. You'll want the stuff that needs low latency on the fast routes, ie shortest number of hops. Streaming content, send that the long way around.

Government needs to lay off sticking it's fingers, fist or whole ass on the scales. If there's a PARTICULAR anti-trust related issue then address that specifically. Want to avoid the problems that Net Neutrality purports to fix? Dial back on the anti-competitive laws at the state and local level.

Anyone notice the electric scooters popping up? Notice how if they get over used they can burden streets and sidewalks if the users aren't considerate of others? Net neutrality would ignore that they're trying to use the roads like personal pathways and darting in and out of traffic. Bicycles and pedestirans are givne specific lanes to use for specific purpoes. Buses too. Some roads are restricted from use by heavy vehicles for a variety of reasons. Net Neutrality applied to roads would make ALL roads usable by ALL vehicles.

ISPs and network providers are selling you a service. A transport mechanism. They bloody well should be able to pick and choose who runs what over their network for a given fee structure. Otherwise they just raise their rates for everyone to cover the cost to provide bandwidth for the heavy users.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Stop thinking there is.

Edited by rmgill, 10 August 2018 - 1019 AM.

  • 0

#48 Der Zeitgeist

Der Zeitgeist

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,168 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Captive to Russia

Posted 10 August 2018 - 1021 AM

IT gear costs money. High speed internet cost more money. We have new optics that we can shoot 100 gig signals 35 miles over a single LC pair of fibers (single mode). They're $35,000 per module.

New Fancy internet connectivity costs money. The fiber costs money. The switching gear costs money. Compare high speed networks with roads. If you're going to charge a flat rate, then you should be fine with a 120,000 lb truck paying the same for a toll road as a moped. If the company that built the network has a bunch of mopeds that want to run on it, then anyone running a large over weight vehicle should be not allowed to use that road.

More over, we have this new tech which lets us perform traffic forming. In a sense, IP routing takes the shortest route to a destination based on the routing tables. MPLS lets network admins route the heavy traffic, say like streaming content, the long way around if the short route is busy. It also lets you route preferred data to a set of links. Different types of data are high or low latency tolerant. You'll want the stuff that needs low latency on the fast routes, ie shortest number of hops. Streaming content, send that the long way around.

Government needs to lay off sticking it's fingers, fist or whole ass on the scales. If there's a PARTICULAR anti-trust related issue then address that specifically. Want to avoid the problems that Net Neutrality purports to fix? Dial back on the anti-competitive laws at the state and local level.

 

Finally, an actual counter argument from someone who really understands what net neutrality is.

 

I disagree, however, as we in Germany already saw the crap that ISPs were trying to pull to keep Netflix and other quality streaming services from gaining market share among German customers by trying to put their own crappy "content" into their data plans.

 

Anyone who ever had to endure a sales pitch from an annoying T-Online customer service guy where you have a hard time explaining that NO, you don't want any TV packages from them and NO, also no included German streaming service, thank you very much, would be crazy to oppose net neutrality legislation.


Edited by Der Zeitgeist, 10 August 2018 - 1025 AM.

  • 0

#49 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,976 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 10 August 2018 - 1159 AM

The FTC already regulates a lot of the stuff that net neutrality is supposed to prevent and adding another layer of bureaucracy to internet services here in the US is not going to make things better.  What would be helpful is if there were more than (usually) two ISPs to choose from in any given city.  I also think that when the biggest players in the streaming business are cheering on more regulation it's because it gives them an advantage over newer/smaller players in the market.


  • 0

#50 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,718 posts
  • Interests:WW2 Armor (mostly US)

Posted 10 August 2018 - 1339 PM

keep in mind that TankNet itself has been under regular attack by Google and others and has been listed as a malicious site for quite some time even though hundreds if not thousands of notifications have been sent in by regular posters here


  • 0

#51 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,528 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 10 August 2018 - 1352 PM

 

Finally, an actual counter argument from someone who really understands what net neutrality is.

 

I disagree, however, as we in Germany already saw the crap that ISPs were trying to pull to keep Netflix and other quality streaming services from gaining market share among German customers by trying to put their own crappy "content" into their data plans.

 

Anyone who ever had to endure a sales pitch from an annoying T-Online customer service guy where you have a hard time explaining that NO, you don't want any TV packages from them and NO, also no included German streaming service, thank you very much, would be crazy to oppose net neutrality legislation.

 

 

The problem is that in order to get that nice high speed connection to NetFlix, you need a nice high speed high bandwidth connection to them. Which means you need them to have a PoP (Point of presence) in your space at your local switching office. OR you need to build connections to where they are. Or they need to be working with a CDN (Contend Distribution Network like Akamai) that is in your space or near where you CAN hook into.

All that costs money.

To put it in more common terms

Why doesn't this:

024237_7ce852c0.jpg


have the same bandwidth and speed (cause they're not the same thing) as this?:
autobahn.jpg?w968h681


Why don't they cost the same to use too?


  • 0

#52 TTK Ciar

TTK Ciar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,984 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sebastopol, CA, USA
  • Interests:material engineering, composite armor, GPC, battletank technology

Posted 10 August 2018 - 1649 PM

Disclaimer -- my employer is an ILEC and an ISP, and my opinions expressed here are my own, some of them in stark contrast to my employer's.

Purely as a matter of principle, Network Neutrality is a step in the wrong direction. The internet service providers own their infrastructure, so they should have the final say in who uses it, how, and for what price. That's what "ownership" means. By inserting itself into this decision-making process, the government effectively made itself co-owners of formerly private property, by fiat.

That having been said, it could have been worse. In actual practice, the FCC applied its authority to enforce NN very narrowly. They smacked Comcast's hands and got them to stop the asinine business practices that had pissed off customers enough to get NN passed in the first place. They didn't abuse it, or apply it more broadly, even though the letter of the law would have allowed them to.

And then NN was repealed earlier this year, so it's almost a moot point. It remains to be seen whether the the big ISPs will refrain from the kinds of practices which prompted NN's enactment. If they know what's good for them, they'll tread more lightly, and there will be no demand for making NN law again. NN no longer binds them, but the threat of potential future NN laws might keep them in line.

Tangentially, if NN hadn't been repealed, it might have been used to provide sites like Tanknet with legal protection against blocks and filters. By the letter of the law, any practice that discriminated against some sources of traffic on the basis of its content was actionable. Taken in the broadest sense, that could have been misused to prohibit ISPs from combating DDoS attacks and spammers, but presumably the FCC wouldn't do that.

If one is worried that the FCC could be subverted by evil executive forces and ruin the internet with its NN authority, that would be a valid argument against future NN legislation, but as things stand the opposite actually happened.

Edited by TTK Ciar, 10 August 2018 - 1650 PM.

  • 0

#53 Ssnake

Ssnake

    Virtual Shiva Beast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,425 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hannover, Germany
  • Interests:Contemporary armor - tactics and technology

Posted 10 August 2018 - 1758 PM

Purely as a matter of principle, Network Neutrality is a step in the wrong direction. The internet service providers own their infrastructure, so they should have the final say in who uses it, how, and for what price. That's what "ownership" means. By inserting itself into this decision-making process, the government effectively made itself co-owners of formerly private property, by fiat.

 

REGULATION is not disappropriation. You have regulations for fresh water supply, for railways, for public roads. They are natural monopolies and the internet has stopped being a purely optional geek gadget. We regulate toxic emissions into water and air because it affects everybody. We regulate how much share of the press / TV / radio market may be concentrated in the hands of a single person/corporation.

 

In short, there never has been purely free and unregulated private ownership anywhere, at any given time, except maybe in the Wild West where it was basically anarchy/rule of the strongest. Regulation comes in as soon as there are a lot of stakeholders in addition to the few investors.

 

I'm sorry, in this case your point of view seems to be clouded by your profession. Regulation is a regular part of all economic activity. I see no reason that ISPs should be exampted from that principle.


  • 0

#54 CT96

CT96

    Deputy Assistant Secretary to the Dragon Slayer Apprentice

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,624 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern Virginia
  • Interests:Miltary History, Geopolitics, Computers

Posted 10 August 2018 - 1800 PM

keep in mind that TankNet itself has been under regular attack by Google and others and has been listed as a malicious site for quite some time even though hundreds if not thousands of notifications have been sent in by regular posters here

 

On that note, it is interesting to note that the specific malicious URL my AV spit out was the Avatar used by Der Zeitgeist. When I explicitly whitelisted this grate site, DZ's Avatar remained blocked. All other avatars continued to render. I don't know why his specific image is considered malicious - even if he's using steganography to relay data, I am not aware of any image based exploits in the wild. 


  • 0

#55 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 10 August 2018 - 1817 PM

Ryan, I would find that argument more compelling if ISPs were not already making veey good money providing high speed, high bandwidth internet under net neutrality and if I thought the SJWs running them wouldnt decide to use their powers for justice as YouTube et al do.
  • 0

#56 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,408 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 10 August 2018 - 1851 PM

 

I always thought that it was just the usual "RAH RAH, Obama, leftist, socialist, evil" argument, but it seems R011 is right and they really just don't know and think it's something about "neutrality" in the sense of "impartiality of viewpoints". 

Net Neutrality fundamentally is about the US government treating the internet as a utility.  On the face it's about allowing poorly run internet businesses piggy back on the infrastructure of those with better business models.  Under the face of it, in this climate of Orwellian quashing of speech, it would also have been used to quash "hate" speech.  Hate speech being defined as that speech the left finds offensive. 


  • 0

#57 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 10 August 2018 - 1919 PM

How could it possibly be used to regulate speech?
  • 0

#58 TTK Ciar

TTK Ciar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,984 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sebastopol, CA, USA
  • Interests:material engineering, composite armor, GPC, battletank technology

Posted 10 August 2018 - 1956 PM

Realistically, it couldn't, not unless the next NN law is significantly different from the previous.

Here's the full text of the order:

in PDF -- http://s3.documentcl...fcc-15-24a1.pdf

in text -- http://s3.documentcl...fcc-15-24a1.txt

Edited by TTK Ciar, 10 August 2018 - 2000 PM.

  • 0

#59 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 10 August 2018 - 2056 PM

You can include any non-related regulations or laws to a NN law. That does`nt make those things net neutrality.


  • 0

#60 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,528 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 11 August 2018 - 0059 AM

I'm sorry, in this case your point of view seems to be clouded by your profession. Regulation is a regular part of all economic activity. I see no reason that ISPs should be exampted from that principle.


The problems most desired to be fixed by NN are caused by local and state government regulations assuring rent seeking. If you want to fix the actual problems, minimizing the rent seeking ability would be best. Increase the facility for competition rather than allowing municipalities to give special deals to specific companies in exchange for anti-competitive laws.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users