This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Net Neutrality Debate Proves The Opinions Are Far From Informed
As many of you know the FCC approved what is now considered the greatest change in the fundamental underpinnings of how the internet will be both used as well as “allowed” to be used. The regulation now known as Net Neutrality will supposedly make the internet more “fair” or “equal” to everyone. All I’ll ask you to ponder is this: How’s your cable bill working out for you?
There’s a lot of known and unknowns still to be had as we sit here today. Why? Regardless of what you’ve heard or seen written in the press about this regulation; no one, and I do mean, no one knows the details to this new and sweeping regulation.
The reported 330-ish paged regulation was held in a way resembling sealed documents from a court case. The only people who read it are those that wrote it, and voted it into law. We now have to wait and see just how much everything changes.
Every future or current business, entrepreneur, as well as individual that accesses the web will be effected. Along with what everyone now takes for granted about the internet will also be changed. How much if any will remain the same, or even possible going forward no one yet knows. And that’s not hyperbole. Everything that one thought they knew or even assumed has now changed. Period.
What took my breath away was just how many bought into the premise that all this was about (as in solely ) was not allowing ISP or cable providers to throttle content. i.e., Not allow a cable provider to charge more to a content provider for faster access to deliver their content and nothing more. And that regulating the internet would now fix this issue.
The discussions and buttressing of arguments based on examples using monopolies and utilities by those pushing for it showed just how ill-informed many of the so-called “experts” were.
Just how little knowledge people have in their fundamental understanding of the differences between a real monopoly and a business impediment was just shocking. Although I shouldn’t have been so surprised. After all, this was Silicon Valley where unicorns and rainbows still are accepted business plans for a round of VC funding. (but that window is closing far faster than many realize)
Let me use an example to help illustrate. It’s meant to be over simplistic however, it’s far more instructive (in my opinion) than anything I’ve heard from those who are so-called “experts.”
Regardless of what you may think about your cable company or internet provider (and trust me I have no love for mine) the real issue in the end is what is known as “the last mile.” In other words the underlying issue of speed controls is in direct proportion to the ability for data to pass through efficiently in about the last mile to your home or computer. In other words the issue is basically from the pole to your house. Not from the provider to “the pole.” Again this is an oversimplification so please spare me the emails.
The issue that was becoming relevant to where both sides of the content providers along with the customers found themselves was the bottleneck effect happening at the customer’s home. i.e., within that last mile.
There’s only one way to resolve that issue. One and only one: You must build out the infrastructure to accommodate. And that requires money. Big money. The only question is who pays? You? The cable or ISP provider? Or the content creator. i.e., Netflix™ and others.
Currently the “individual” paying is irrelevant for this argument. No one would solely pay the exorbitant amount of money it would cost on an individual level. That would come later in a collective form of billing such as “service fees” of some sort down the road. So it’s left between the providers.
Contrary to what many are touting, a resolution (a private one as in a business to business decision and agreement) was being worked out. i.e., Netflix and others were in fact sitting down, working out monetary agreements and other particulars as to help remedy many current issues. The real issue was: It wasn’t what “issue politics” wanted. And wanted – “Right now!”
Think about it this way. The electricity coming into your home works generally the same way. And this was used by many as an underpinning of their argument to express the “utility” equivalency discussion. Personally I thought it was the exact argument to show just how little many understood rather than solidify it.
If you want more power into your home guess what? You have to pay for the infrastructure not only at your home (e.g. update your wiring and more) but you also might need to pay for the build out from the pole. If you want or need 3 phase power? You’re going to need to spend money. A lot of money. The power is there but if you want it, you’re going to need to pay.
The infrastructure to carry what you currently have you paid for when the home was built. The electric company didn’t pay, the home builder paid when the home was first constructed. If you want more power? You are going to pay. And here’s where this issue really strike home to the “utility” issue used by so many.
If you don’t like the power companies fees, service, regulations et al. Tough. Because you can’t go around them. You can’t build your own better, more customer friendly or compliant power company. They have a true monopoly. And no matter what you say or do, you are going to pay if it’s decided by the regulating authorities, that no matter what – you are going to pay.
Think not? You can go “off grid” you say? You’ll find a way to “hack.” Not so fast. There are reports nationwide where it is illegal to disconnect your home from the “power” companies. Many are finding themselves facing both criminal as well as monetary charges for trying to “disconnect.” Your cable bill (or broadband) is going to fall into this category in coming years. After all, if it’s now deemed as “utility” status why not? Think it’s just the electricity? How about another “utility?”
Try telling many city governments that you just spent $25,000 to update your septic system to a new state of the art standard so you don’t need to connect to the cities new and improved or proposed sewer system. Ask them why you need to pay for some “special assessment” bill of a few thousand dollars payable in 30 days along with receiving a monthly bill for something you don’t need or use?
The response will be: “Sorry, I just work here. Please pay the bill and make sure your property is accessible for the digging crews to connect your property. Have a nice day.” And that’s just the start. Welcome to the world of “utility.” and “monopoly.” Careful what you wish for – you just might get it!
If you think those in the industry as in “Silicon Valley” have more of an understanding that you or I do. All I’ll do is point you to the most recent as well as instructive or insightful understandings on this issue by one of net neutrality’s foremost cheerleaders.
I suggest you watch this short exchange that took place on CNBC™ as to why this must take place and why its necessary for the good of the internet. Then ask yourself this question: The internet just moved from anything you knew it to be, into something no one has any understanding or clue as to what it will morph into from here. All based on a movement propelled on the understandings and insights professed by so-called “experts” as those in this video.
Personally I am stunned on just how little of an understanding of business those in Silicon Valley have. Yet maybe I shouldn’t be. For there is no where else a business can be worth billions in market cap that either can’t turn a profit, or better yet, can’t keep a customer if they so dare as to charge a penny.
But that’s now all about to change too. Because once new “regulation” concerns become part of the mix Wall Street has to think about when deciding who, what, or where will the hot money (if there’s any left) will flow: Silicon Valley is going to find itself with not as much love as they once garnered. For nothing snuffs out the spark of VC free money for “hacking” or lets say “Innovation” like the threat and over arching hand – of regulation. Welcome to the land of utilities. Hope you like the new neighborhood.
Forget about the once “wild west” of hackers. That’s just been handed its death knell by their own hands. For one thing that’s far mightier than a coders hack is a government bodies decree of regulation. There’s no neutrality nor nothing “free” once you allow and call for the interjection and oversight of both the government along with its enforceable hand of law via regulations.
Just wait until all the details become known as well as imposed. I have a feeling net neutrality is going to feel a whole lot more like “net injustice” than anyone dared contemplate. Let alone imagined
»
- 24886 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Nothing new, move along.
Time to encrypt and decentralize. The concept of 'last mile' will be in history books.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/27/republicans-strike-bac...
You can bet the Gov't will see to it...
That there is nothing NEUTRAL...
In Net Neutrality.
Our Internet will soon resemble China's.
Who is John Galt?
We had to fuck up the Internet to save it.
Al Gore's legacy, destroyed.
Blame Global Warming.
If it ain't broke, we're going to say it is so we can fix it.
-Any Progressive
One of the first things to be done to the new NEUTERED Internet...
Will be the addition of a "nation-wide Internet kill switch" controlled by the White House.
Damn hard to get any legitimate protest and/or unrest going against the Gov't without the Internet.
Just wait until all the details become known as well as imposed. I have a feeling net neutrality is going to feel a whole lot more like “net injustice” than anyone dared contemplate. Let alone imagined
I have some news for you. The insiders have known for years exactly what this "new" regulation looks like, since they wrote it years ago, and they have business plans already in progress to take full advantage of it and screw their outsider competitors (if any).
Wait and see who is "first to market" with new regulation-friendly products.
"The reported 330-ish paged regulation was held in a way resembling sealed documents from a court case. The only people who read it are those that wrote it, and voted it into law. We now have to wait and see just how much everything changes."
To all my freedom loving friends, left-right and right down the middle.
Is this what is called your "democracy"? Which of these FIVE board members who made this decision did you vote for and vest the authority for "making law" and to speak for you?
How has that regulatory/technocratic/best & brightest minds in the world been workin out for you lately?
The most transparent administration.......EVA!!!
Stroke of a pen......law of the land.......kinda cool - Bill Clinton
I'm pro-neutrality. Beats the heck out of corporate regulated content. e.g. "I disagree with the opinions on ZH, so I will charge them $300,000 per year to access my Comcast customers."
So, Comcast is billing you $5,000 for that comment or what?
It is funny what a convoluted argument it takes to spin: "Comcast has the right to decide what content you see."
But do they and are they censoring now? I assume you use Comcast, yet I see every word you're writing.
Maybe what you should be thinking about is, will Comcast gladly climb into bed with "regulators" (just like with ObamaCare) and pass along all those great fees & taxes to you. Then, combine that with fictional cyber security threats (OMG!...the Norks hacked Sony!...lol) the latest and greatest attempt to scare the sheeple into the death embrace of the state and you have a real recipe for disaster.
The net works fine just like it is, leave it alone.
Nmewn, you need Internet Insurance. Pick a plan, pick a deductable, and just check if Zh is in-network. That $35k fee after insurance would be $10-15k at most. I think the challenge will be getting all of the young, fee free Snapchatters to buy in and lower the cost of all of us with prexisting ZH conditions.
Unelected beurocrats making bad choices with vast negative impact on everyone life is obviously a good thing, right machendra?
Confirmed Zionists made the decision.
FACT.
The internet is an enemy to these vile creatures. Their Talmudist secrets - including sucking off babies - are out in the open with a free internet.
Think about it.
Well suprisingly enough, they were all "appointed" by that well known zionist, one Barack Hussein Obama...
http://www.fcc.gov/leadership
/////
Oh, the red arrows cometh...lol...I know, I know, the truth hurts really REALLY bad but you'll just have to deal with it.
Ho, hum. Conspiracy theories are so lame sometimes. Lotta speculation, little to show for it. But since YOU have some news, it MUST be true. YOU are such an INSIDER, after all.
Whatever comes of it, it can't be much worse than the gouging monopolies we're stuck with now. Time to take a close look at the TELCOM industry, and companies like Verizon, AT&T and Comcast, regarding antitrust. Net neutrality is just a start.
SEVEN socialist JEWS CONTROL 90% of the MEDIA in the USA....google the capitalized words.....
The OBAMANET will give them control of the other 10%
"Just how little knowledge people have in their fundamental understanding of the differences between a real monopoly and a business impediment was just shocking. "
So, let me understand...monopoly cable should also get a stab at monopoly internet?
And everyone here seems to agree?
Does everyone also agree that it was really "kewl" of Colin Powell's son to kill any "symmetrical" traffic by commanding the "G-lite" ADSL standard...and thereby saving the RBOC's T-1 gravy train?
I won't pretend that this legislation most likely has doesn't have several regulatory avenues written in to assist the NSA and Hollywood's digital rights vampires, but in general, the argument here in this article is that any "anti-monoply" (pro free market) legislation is somehow bad?
Where have the real economic thinkers gone? Is everyone here a back-slappin', group-thinkin', desperate social media case?
No, don't answer that.
but in general, the argument here in this article is that any "anti-monoply" (pro free market) legislation is somehow bad?
Quite the opposite. Net Neutrality will entrench existing providers while the free market would foster new providers. If Comcast, for example, gives you better access to their partners and shuts out other content then there would be some customers who would be willing to pay for an alternative provider. There would be a niche for them to fill. But now there won't be.
Same story as the forced integration of private business. If a white cafe owner refused to serve blacks then that created a niche for others (likely blacks themselves) who would be willing to serve blacks and perhaps whites as well. But thanks to the Civil Rights Act that niche disappeared and black folks finally had the freedom to patronize businesses owned by racists. I wonder how many black owned sandwich shops and rib joints disappeared when the "Whites Only" sign came down in the apparently more desirable white owned restaurants.
Or, conversely, how many white-owned businesses closed down when the Diversity Horde drove all their civilized, paying cutomers away.
You don't have to wonder how many... See "Food Deserts", "Dead Malls", and "The Cities of Detroit, Camden, Gary, St. Louis, etc." for more details.
I will anyway, because you wrote:
"I won't pretend that this legislation most likely has doesn't have several regulatory avenues written in to assist the NSA and Hollywood's digital rights vampires..."
That is THE problem, and yet you don't get it. I'm sure there will be other avenues they'll now use that will be too numerous to count. The hell with the marginal tech issues that supposedly exist now, they really are superfluous, I'm serious, it's the regulatory foothold, applied to the internet in this case, that sets the stage for future mischief. For example, I see an internet traffic toll tax in all of our futures. Why not? The FCC has now made it's control of the internet explicit. The "Regulatory" body has now staked a claim and set a convenient precedent in this area. They just couldn't keep their hands off. Who's going to police the FCC cops? I ask YOU<-
If you think that's bad, you should see their market share for candelabras (a.k.a. menorahs). What's your fucking point? Jews are good at lots of things, and you're jealous?
So monopolies are typically not a good thing, particularly when they're run by an even tighter group of dualies and garchs? Am I close to your "f__king" point? For the benefit of Mr. Kite-above.
Their audacity is boundless, to even use the word "neutrality".
No worse than Patriot Act, Affordable Care Act, Dept. Of Homeland Security, (starts feeling nausious)
True enough. Must have had a brain fade there for a minute. Its a defense mechanism i think.
It's unfair that youth is wasted on the young.
"...make the internet more “fair” or “equal” to everyone."
Great. Affirmative action for the Internet. White males to the back of the bus. Gang bangers welcome to your "free" Internet ride. Oh, and don't you DARE criticize Dear Leader via the Internet.
This is a regulation and will be published in the Federal Register after which the Congress has either 30 or 60 days to shoot-it-down before it takes effect.
Why doesn't anyone bring this up so we have a fighting chance???
Maybe the author can correct me but according to the new rules the internet is now NOT a utility so ISP's CAN charge Netflix, etc. for a direct and faster pipe and leave the "little guys" to wallow in the slower speeds however defined by Capital Hill.
John 3:16
Duh. So many dolts here its hard to sort through the ignorance. Corporate whores sponsor posts like this and the cretins jump on board.
So, NO. The Net Neutrality legislation means the internet is now YES a utility, so the ISP's CANNOT charge END USERS (like you) for a direct and faster pipe and leave the "little guys" (like most of us) to wallow in the slower speeds or be charged extra for content.
Read up on how Net Neutrality rules have worked in the Netherlands and quit listening to CORPORATE WHORES like this clown Mark St. Cyr. Guess ZH sells out once again to corporate interests over the little guy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/business/dutch-offer-preview-of-net-ne...
But, hey, as far as the average knuckle dragger who reads this blog is concerned, all they need to know is "If Obama is for it , it MUST be bad". No critical thinking skills necessary when thats your only criteria. (And NO, I hate the DUOPOLY party politicians we are stuck with, and that includes OBAMA, but I STILL can figure out where I stand on issues by looking at FACTS instead of PROPAGANDA)
Thanks for paying to deliver my Netflix streaming you dumb bag of dicks. Oh, and you get to pay to deliver Google and Facebooks's video ads as well. They get paid by the advertiser, you pay to deliver them. Win-win for everyone but you. For someone so bothered by corporate interests I wonder how you feel knowing corporations wrote these fucking regulations.
And I CAN type CAPITALS alSO.
ETA: Re-reading your comment is actually comical. You sling a lot of bullshit but it's clear you don't even understand the terminology you're using, and likely don't even understand the internet in general. It's just anti-corporate nonsense with, again, a few capitalized words thrown in for good measure. Calling others uninformed whores...physician, heal thyself.
Get a fucking clue and quit listening to CORPORATE PROPAGANDA. Lets look at who supports Net Neutrality:
"Who supports net neutrality regulation?Net neutrality regulation supporters include consumer advocates, human-rights groups and many tech companies and organizations. The nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation is a vocal supporter of net neutrality, as are smaller organizations such as Fight for the Future and Freepress. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) passed the Open Internet Order in 2010 in an attempt to maintain net neutrality, and Chairman Wheeler is now an advocate of strict Title II regulatory power.
On May 7, 2014, more than 130 high-profile technology companies submitted an open letter to Tom Wheeler and the FCC commissioners stating their support for an open Internet. Amazon, eBay, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, Reddit, Twitter and Yahoo all threw their weight behind the letter, along with other signatories ranging from BitTorrent to Mozilla. Many more companies have joined the effort leading up to the FCC's Feb. 26 vote on common carrier regulation."
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/net-neutrality-faq,news-18687.html
So, who is AGAINST Net Neutrality, other than monopolist BIG TELCOM and the politicians and mainstream media whores that work for them? Lets see a list. Or even some informed techies that can explain WHY they would support it. All you get is corporate whores like the jackass who wrote this post.
"Get a fucking clue and quit listening to CORPORATE PROPAGANDA. Lets look at who supports Net Neutrality:"
And then folks, he goes on to list...get this...seriously you guys...he goes on to list a BUNCH OF FUCKING CORPORATIONS THAT SUPPORT NET NEUTRALITY. You know, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, some of the BIGGEST CORPORATIONS IN HISTORY!!!!111!eleventy!11!1
So tell me spooz, which corporate propaganda should I listen to? Your favored corporations? Someone else's? Some random blog somewhere, or maybe some Dutch corporations?
Seriously, you are the problem. An ignorant, mouth-breathing piece of shit who just yells a lot, forgets to breath, gets dizzy, and moves on to the next item on the agenda of fucking with other people. Go die in a fire.
ETA again: It should clue you in that if your main rebuttal is essentially, "oh yeah, well what big names agree with YOU?" your argument is non-existent. You should be able to explain why you think the way you do without writing out a list of people or COrpORAtiOnS that agree with you. Your entire argument is, "you're a corporate WHORE" (which is apparently OK, I guess, as long as it's the "right" corporations, amirite?) It's worth mentioning again, you need to go die in a fire.
We all need to face the sorry truth, corporations run by the elite own the government, they are the government. It never mattered which way this went, the same people would be in control as always. This whole thing would go their way regardless, it's just a smoke screen to keep people arguing same as the two party system. We have not seen real capitalism for decades. The only way out is a new road we have to build ourselves and that will never get done as long as people drag behind doing the elite's bidding. Keep fighting, that's what they want. As long as we stay divided, we will always lose.
The fact that Soros and his filthy ilk threw $200 million at getting "Net Neuterality" enacted tells me everything that I need to know. Billionaires don't buy laws and regulations in order to benefit regular people. The buy laws and regulations in order to increase their power the power of the governments that serve them.
Except, he didn't "throw" money at getting Net Neutrality enacted. The fact that some of the groups he supports may happen to have Net Neutrality as one of MANY of the ideas that they stand behind is not the same thing as "throwing money at it".
Interesting how, after John Oliver's HBO story drew such a the huge grassroots support for Net Neutrality, arguably turning the tide for net neutrality, that the KOCH brothers, through their American Commitment organization, was able to stir up the useful idiots enough to get them to send out a slew of form letters for the second round of comments.
http://gizmodo.com/half-of-anti-net-neutrality-comments-came-from-shadow...
You really are a moron aren't you. Jeez dude, you really ARE the problem. You are an totally ininformed dolt, spoon-fed your opinion by the media you trust, never stopping to think:
"hmmm, what industry that has been taken over by the Fed Regulation Regime has NOT become a monopolistic, malinvested, pile of corruption and inefficiency, at the expense of the consumer????"
Here's a quote for ya clueless one:
"Anybody who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian."
You're welcome.
Yeah, just let the corporate masters be your daddy. No need to vote for them. When the biggest money piles own our legislature, even the appearance of democracy disappears forever.
And it goes the other way around, dolt. You give CORPORATIONS personhood with legislation like Citizens United, and the money flows to our legislature. Follow the money,
Except, he didn't "throw" money at getting Net Neutrality enacted. The fact that some of the groups he supports may happen to have Net Neutrality as one of MANY of the ideas that they stand behind is not the same thing as "throwing money at it".
The real grassroots response supporting Net Neutrality came after John Oliver, who is not funded by Soros, did his famous segment HOB's "Last Week With John Oliver", creating an outpouring of comments which arguably turning the tide for the FCC
So huge a number of comments, in fact, that the KOCH brothers, through their American Commitment organization, felt impelled to make an attempt to stir up the useful idiots enough to get them to send out a slew of form letters for the second round of comments. That effort was pretty transparent.
http://gizmodo.com/half-of-anti-net-neutrality-comments-came-from-shadow...
Yeah, feel good come together and we shall overcome.
When people lobby to enrich themselves by fucking me I'm going to fight them. I can multi-task.
Who is smarter? Someone that walks away from a shell game, or the one that keeps playing?
Sorry but I have no use for platitudes at this point in my life, especially when they're not even very relevant.
fascism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Except in this case lefty loosie, instead of righty tightie.
Fascism is a Nation-based socialist paradigm where national corporations and the government work symbiotically. That's why it is called National Socialism. But there are no more "national"corporations-- they have been superseded by the giant international corporations. No national corporations, therefore no fascism. The fascist model is now obsolete.
Today, we live in a world of INTERNATIONAL corporations. International corporations work with international elites to subvert national governments, in order to promote INTERNATIONAL socialism-- better known as communism.
I'm more interested in the content I get than who gets to be the gatekeeper of what I get to see. Those guys provide the content of what I use on the internet. BIG TELCOM is just the toll keeper that has a monopoly on the last mile, trying to get me to pay extra if I want to see everything. Which is why they should be treated like a public utility.
I don't see how anyone, including the article writer, can be for or against a 200 page ruling they have not read. Doesn't a sane person need to see the ruling before making judgement? Maybe I am crazy, but I can't form an opinion for or against something I haven't read.
There were big corporations on both sides of the issue, my guess is that regardless of which side won the issue, the average person would lose. That is how politics work in the USSA, the rights of individuals are less important that the profits of the state sponsored collectives.
I find most of the commentary and the fact no one has mentioned the concept of Internet peering pretty comical and a good barometer to the level of cluelessness about the "Netflix" issue.
Finally someone gets a clue. +3000
All options offered are already rigged. We have to stop letting them divide us and we have to build a whole new path. Until that happens, we are all just spinning our wheels.
Then weigh in, especially re: peering. Netflix requires a low-latency, high-speed connection, very costly to build and maintain the infrastructure capable of delivering it. What do the ISPs get in that exchange? They certainly can't charge Netflix for it now.
Do you see why Netflix lobbied so aggressively for Net Neutrality? They don't want to pay for that connection. They want you to in the form of higher internet service costs.
We don't need to see what's in it to know it is a fucked up piece of shit. Why the hell else would they keep it hidden?? If it benefited the many against the interests of the few, they would gladly release the text. If, on the other hand, it benefits the few against the interests of the many, you need to keep that shit hidden, and make it wordy and impossible to understand so when the text does finally get released, it will take a decade to understand the implications. By which time the few will have already looted the system, and the many will be staggering and weakened from the costs.
"We don't need to see what's in it to know it is a fucked up piece of shit. Why the hell else would they keep it hidden?? If it benefited the many against the interests of the few, they would gladly release the text."
+10000
Can ANYONE refute that statement???
Pardon my cluelessness, but why are you referring to "Net Neutrality legislation"? Congress had nothing to do with this. Or do you consider Obama's imperial rule the equivalent of legislating?
I'm sure that if Congress had any input we'd be just as f**ked as letting Obama do it himself.
Exactly, and the icing on the cake is that corporations literally helped write these regulations:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-net-neutr...
But that's OK with spooz up there. He's totally on board with corporations writing regulations. We just have to be sure they're the corporations he's OK with, otherwise we're just CORPORATE WHORES...something something...propaganda.
Not to be snarky, but ALL legislation and regulation is written with the assistance of corporate expertise.
Man have you not learned anything.............if the government can do it, they will.......
Just remember this day and how well the internet worked, they width and depth of content, and how cheap it use to be.
As with any typical govt operation I expect rates to double within the next year and internet content to start to disappear.
We've got to force the regulation down the throats of the sheeple to find out what's in the regulation.
or until the sheeple regurgitate rainbows!
It's alright, the internet will be the last of all of our worries once ww3 starts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yloaBw80fV4
Judging on the number of peeps in suits shaking hands it will not a good thing for the humans.
-
Net neuter-reality will do for the web what ACA did for healthcare.
How much you wanna bet...
ZH will be one of the first websites to be NEUTERED?
Centralized DNS is about to get less... centralized. Sprinkle in a little DHT, and watch the gov tit sucking DNS providers go poof, just like the horse and buggy industry.
They don't even have to do that. Smooth Fascism (TM pods) is the rule of the day.
Just have instant, on-demand streaming of "Ow My Balls" 24/7/365 and voila.
Like monkey's hitting the coke button. Over and over again.
pods
Go 'way, 'batin'.
I'll bet every penny I have that the recent decision to make Internet service a utility so it can be regulated will not neuter a single website. All these regulations did was prevent ISPs from neutering websites.
Government usually does not work that way. If there is an opportunity to sieze power and control, it will. Now I sincerely hope you are correct. I have long disregarded the conspiracy theories. But for me, these regulations will be a watershed momement. If the Soros and leftist entities succeeded in using the popular notion of net neutrality in order to establish a framework to sieze control of the message something that is quite plausible given the public's skepticism on many of their worldviews, then we all need to be very worried about the future course of society.
For those that support it you don't know what you are supporting because the regulations haven't even been published yet- not even AFTER the vote.
For people like me who DON'T support it, knowing the regulations isn't even necessary. The way it was passed alone makes it illegal and unconstitutional.
I'm just thankful that we have dedicated public servants willing to look past the deliberately restrictive language of the constitution and taking a more progressive approach to protecting all of us.
God bless them every one.
Ammo...I need more ammo....
"Ammo...I need more ammo...."
Obozo is working on that ban as we speak...
got about 18k rnds. is that a liberal or conservative position?
You oughta keep that to yourself, lib or conservative . . .
Yep, the Feds would call you a terrorist for sure!
I'm more of a hoarder. The shortages and high prices have driven me like a starved dog to buy and stack but I'm still too cheap to shoot. I think that will change shortly as I really need to spend more range time. It has little to do with any government threat as I think at this point violent resistance is worse than futile. It more of a hedge and a bet against social unrest. cultural and economic diversity do not make me feel more secure. Besides, fear is the number one product of our government so I assume by purchasing habits fit nicely with their economic growth theme. Obama has dome more for ammo and gun sales than any other American in history. I can assume it was deliberate. If they outlaw ownership of ammo I'm done, but if they simply outlaw manufacture or importation or some other impediment, stacking could be beneficial.
You'd better run (to Cabellas)! Dictaster Barry will be putting the kabosh on ALL ammo sales here real soon. This is the year it goes down, boys. Enjoy normalcy while it lasts.
Guns shows usuyally have good prices and no shipping. Cheaper than dirt and a few others have some good prices too. Just picked up 1k rounds 5.7x28 fnh for $440.
IF they get the 223 banned on armor piercing capabilities you can kiss everything goodbye except for your basic handgun rounds.......
Are .458 Win Mag solids considered armor piercing?
Armor CRUSHING.
I would love to have an AR chambered in .458 SOCOM. Standard AR-15 mag holds 10.
If you bomb some brown people nobody cares in America. If the debt ceiling is constantly raised and more .gov useless eaters are still allowed employment, nobody cares. If you mess with Joe's porn entertainment, Mary's tmz celeb gossip and some white ashy kid who never saw the sun in person because he chooses to play online minecraft, there will be a revolution.
I think even .gov knows better than to fuck with the internet at this point. We need a huge false flag for people to give up more liberties.
It effects PORN?
ah shit, the economy is going to die.
You remember the article on ZH about how much each state searches porn and what are the favorite keywords?
Let's see them take that away and DC would burn. Come to think about it in all honesty, I really think the USA would break apart because of porn limitations on the internet. Talk about a sick fucking populace who needs a wakeup call and ass beating(non porno lol).
PORN is the Circus on Bread and Circuses, "FOLKS"
That must be why I like to see the Migits.
oops is there a pc word for migits?
The important thing is that we all continue masturbating. Just beating it for a moment or two of jolly while accomplishing nothing long term but a little motivational shame. They want us all masturbating, in reality or symbolically is even better.
Use it or lose it.
I think most are the pivot
@ saints51
I think you're 100% correct.
Gay porn will still be legal. Reggie insisted.
Absolutely true...again, we have to pass it to know what's in it...and it aint gonna be good.
The FCC itself is illegal and unconstitutional.
But how can we possibly know what's in it unless we pass it???
Reading this post was like eating a rice cake... it felt like I was consuming food, but in reality it was filler with zero nutritional value.
The rice cake is nothing more than a delivery mechanism for the flavored powder sprinkled on them. Got the plain ones? No flavor for you....
Cesium seeds anyone?
The portion of the post that was especially fact free was the false claim that ISPs will have to make huge investments to bring high speed internet service over the "last mile." What complete bullshit that was.
Care to explain?
From my POV, this is exactly what has happened. Regular HS internet (okay, not so high, but like 10 MB down top speed) slowed to a crawl during peak time just after streaming services started taking off during peak times. By upgrading my service to the highest speed, the internet became usable again for watching something. (not NFLX, but short videos on websites or youtube)
Does NFLX require high a speed low latency connection to work? How is this achieved?
One of the most common models of internet service in the US is cable. Cable uses shared bandwidth across the node. With more users using NFLX, Amazon, Hulu or the like, this presents a great demand for low latency, high bandwidth connections.
The problem is that off peak time, the draw is orders of magnitude below peak. So the ISP, in order to keep customers happy, must build out capacity to fulfill this peak time bandwidth load.
Now they are going to be unable to ask NFLX to cough up extra $$ to help accomplish this.
So guess where this investment $$ is going to come from?
pods
In the end Goebbels will be running it....Propoganda to the max...
Paperclip was very successful.
Paperclip was very successful.
Lois Lerner will be in charge of ensuring that the internet is fair.
Just ask Brian Williams.
Yay, so more drivel can clog the pipes making the internet unusable for me at peak times?
Fuck, I paid to have more bandwidth, why can't Netflix users? It was most certainly Netflix and other streamers that forced me to do this already. So I get it twice now?
The Mylar hat side of me (yes, you need Mylar to really reflect the mind control rays) says this is to hide the gems of the internet under more shit.
"Hey, maybe I will look around for information as to how banking really works?" Nah, Netflix has on demand fluff to steal the remaining free time I have, and it is so cheap."
pods
It is sometimes helpful to have a clue about the topic before you write.
Mylar is very effective, a bit more pricy than aluminum foil, but you get more value for the buck.
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Viagrow-25-ft-Mylar-2-mil-Reflective-Film-VMY...
"no one, and I do mean, no one knows the details to this new and sweeping regulation"
~Except for those that wrote it along with the FCC board and commision. So do yourself a favor, look into the folks that put this big gubmint regulation together. Leftists all.
I for one do not have to read it and won't have to, because it will be thrust upon me/us. Think it's about fairness? Only a complete fool would ever believe that. It will take time, but once in play the internet will be changed dramatically and not in a good way.
Just remember some of these "fairness" folks admire the freedom that N.Korea has.
America RIP!
corporate welfare
I learned " Morse code" yesterday. That Verizon comment was eloquent.
Online Conversion - Morse Code Conversion
Without net neutrality ISPs could throttle any site they disagreed with to make them virtually unusuable. ZH writes something critical about Comcast? Next thing you know all ZH pages take 10 seconds to load for Comcast users.
Or maybe Comcast says, "Every website will get slow performance to our end-users unless that site pays us $100,000/year." This amount isn't a problem for CNN, NBC, Fox websites. Smaller alternative news websites like ZH would get destroyed. With websites after a few seconds if a page doesn't load most users go somewhere else. Or maybe Comcast doesn't say "Slow performance" and instead decides to block all websites that don't pay it money. With no net neutrality Comcast could decide what news it's users have access to.
That is what I thought. Net Neutrality is to the internet what common carrier was to the phone networks.
If the competitors don't pass the packets then forget it, the internet is over.
No doubt the jackasses crammed all sorts of bullshit in there to screw everyone over, but net neutrality, what it originally meant, is actually needed. The internet works now because net neutrality was basically an unwritten rule. Maybe it is best to leave well enough alone. Although you had to see this coming when they stopped making the large ISP's rent lines for DSL connections to smaller ISP's.
Yup. If net neutrality is eliminated, because you know it, Comcast will sell a "basic" package which will allow you to browse 50 websites; a "standard" package with 100 sites - and if you wish to browse the entire web, prepare to pay through the arse for it.
And obviously, this also affects services. Because Comcast will be a fucking troll on a bridge demanding you and Netflix both cough up for actually using the bandwidth they already charged you for.
You know that this isn't true. Comcast and other ISPs have to build out bandwidth to handle peak demand due to streaming services.
Comcast could do this TODAY. But why didn't they?
I think you are confusing the idea of "net neutrality" with what this actually is.
It is a way for NFLX and other streaming services to clog the fuck out of the last mile and make everyone pay for the ISPs to build capacity. And you want the government to codify it?
I have spent countless hours looking at my bandwidth. And peak demand time is when it always dropped like a stone, until I went with their highest tier of service.
So, basically I have already been paying for NFLX.
You're welcome.
Real time streaming over the internet is by far the most bandwidth intense service going.
pods
Oh I'm very aware of what net neutrality means. Are you?
Are you aware of Netflix bandwidth dropping through the floor in the run up to Netflix paying off the troll (ie Comcast)? Are you also aware of the FACT that it was - as if by magic - restored the very second they caved?
I mean, what a stellar success for the consumer. Pat yourself on the back.
So it is bad if Comcast throttled NFLX users but you have no problem with NFLX users throttling everyone else unless we pay for them to cross the bridge?
Gotcha.
This has jack shit to do with freedom, this is cost shifting for NFLX so they can offer unlimited streaming for $8 a month and in the process the internet comes under "utility" control.
Of course in Europe, the WoT does not affect you quite as much there. So you won't be getting the digital finger jammed in your backside due to the "national security" of "utilities."
pods
"Gotcha"? No, not quite.
That's called the tragedy of the commons, FYI. And it wouldn't even be an issue if service providers actually supplied the bandwidth they promise to deliver.
But hey, keep trumpeting "up to 30mb" connections, which deliver 4 on a good day. Fuck, I've worked with people in Pasadena, California, who paid through the nose for a fraction of the bandwidth we get here in jolly UK. So I can't even imagine how much people in Odenville or North Haverbrook get ripped off for their "up to 128mb" connections.
Sorry escape, pods has it right on this.
The Tragedy of the Commons deals with a common resource which everyone "owns" and due to this, the resource becomes scarce or depleted through every individual pursuing their own best interest to the detriment of the whole.
Say a common field where people graze their livestock.
So, each family with a family cow grazes their cow in the common field to the point where the field becomes barren.
I understand this principle.
What we have here is a corporation grazing it's gigantic herd of milking cows on that public field and forcing the costs of that action on everyone except themselves in order to keep milk costs down to those who buy milk.
This is NOT an issue of tragedy of the commons, but a cost shifting of providing the necessary bandwidth from the company that SHOULD pay for it, to everyone by forcing the ISP to cover costs. The ISP, which will now be a utility, will be forced to deliver said content and build out the infrastructure to do so. Well, since they are now going to be utility in nature, they will be guaranteed a profit to maintain their utility margin of profit. Well, with costs going up, they will get the government's blessing to shaft everyone so that one set of people may enjoy something.
A symptom of modern society. Make others pay for what you desire, and the best way to accomplish this is to use the force of government.
pods
The internet is 10's of thousands of sites. An internet provider is not going to limit customers to a hundred sites.
OK lets say Sheldon Adelson decides to buy control of Comcast and he decides he doesn't like any sites that criticizes Israel. Without Net Neutrality he could block them or slow their response time to a trickle. We already have blatant news control and censorship in the MSM. The Internet is all we have left
And yet you want to give the government more authority over it?
Cog Dis, can you please pick up the white courtesy phone.
pods
Net Neutrality give the government the same control of the net that it has and always had over the telephone system and most other utilities. Nothing new.
And if you knew anything about the legacy POTS system and the electric utilities, you would know how badly the Feds have fucked those up.
"OK lets say Sheldon Adelson decides to buy control of Comcast and he decides he doesn't like any sites that criticizes Israel. Without Net Neutrality he could block them or slow their response time to a trickle. "
Fine. Let him try. Most people have at least two, and more likely three, different access points for internet-- home, cell, and work. And you have a choice of several different carriers for both your home AND cell providers. That's a total of up to 10 different outlets. Sheldon can only block one of those.
The Feds on the other hand can block them ALL.
Because Comcast will be a fucking troll on a bridge demanding you and Netflix both cough up for actually using the bandwidth they already charged you for.
That same bandwith that congress gave to them for free back in the 90's.
Well it is Newspeak, right. The War Department is now the Defense Department.
When we arm Rebels or assist Syrian Rebels we call it a bill something like "Middle East Stability and Peace Bill".
When they send you to a FEMA camp it will be for Reformation or Reeducation.
Net Neutrality could mean the Opposite. the FCC is now like a CIA or NSA Operation within MSM TV Channels, actually supervising. FCC is taking it on as an Area of New Responsibility & Expanding FCC Power, Authority & Control.
350 pages for a harmless act? Even one of their executives went on RT and spoke against it. A smart Indian-American guy.
So why aren't they doing that now?
Because the argument is a Red Herring. There are tons of feedback mechanisms to protect against this. One being most of these companies are publicly traded.
This is more control as well as a way to spread the buildout cost for piping to carry NFLX on everyone but the users of NFLX.
pods
Which feedback mechanisms? You mean like switching providers?
Yeah good luck with that, with Comcast/Time Warner being a monopoly is substantial markets. Fuck, neither of these have given a shit about upgrading equipment in many areas (while obviously yanking prices regardless) - UNTIL competition has arrived, at which point they either a) upgraded their equipment, b) lobbied to retain an exclusive monopoly, or c) both.
I guess you can always "give up internet access" right? Or just browse it on your mobile?
Frankly, with LTE and 4G, many people's cell phones or tablets can browse faster than their wired connection. That's what you are forgetting.
Don't have cell phone? So what. Buy a 4G hotspot from Verizon (or Sprint or T-Mobile or ATT) and connect your computer to that.
You might have been able to make a case for Net Neutrality 15 years ago when choices were a lot more limited. Today it's just a naked Federal power grab, with only downside for customers, and upside for government censors.
Really? What feedback mechanisms? Please list them as apparently there are "tons".
How does being a publicly traded company prevent them from doing this? Being publicly traded means they'll try to maximize revenue.
Being publicly traded means that if an individual ISP or infrastructure owner is earning an excess return, the public has the chance to participate in that excess return and hedge their costs by purchasing the common shares of the firm. Which seems like a reasonable approach. Simply banning net neutrality means that it will be difficult for the industry to raise capital, and hence, service degradation is likely over the medium to long term as the infrastructure can no longer keep up with demand imposed upon it.
What a total load of fucking bullshit. Net neutrality is the norm across Europe. We see healthy competition, and fast speeds across the continent.
Jesus Christ, do you take all information at face value from Fox News?
Ahhhhh, Europe. Perfect.
What I said about being publically traded is that if news comes out that company X is prohibiting you from seeing website Y then company X's stock price will fall to price Z to reflect this business stance.
Tough thing for Europeans to grasp, free market competition.
pods
Uhuh. What a well thought out and intelligent argument.
We have lots of ISPs offering their services. You have - essentially - none. TW/Comcast dictate their terms across large swathes of America.
And you tell me that WE don't grasp free market competition?
Oh right, well thank you for your support from across the pond. Maybe you can help us enter into more agreements? Maybe a NAU?
Oh smart European, did you ever notice that "utility" and "monopoly" go hand in hand?
I understand what you want, but this is not it. This is a stuff it to everyone to pay for buildout while allowing the government to get it's grips on the internet tighter.
Don't believe me? Which legislation did this new found power arise from?
Surely you realize that here in the USA that the executive merely enforces the laws that the legislative branch passes, correct?
So which law grants the government this authority?
pods
Ah right, so you're promising to fix a corrupt monopoly through allowing the very same corrupt monopoly to toll the internet bridge?
And all of this does nothing to disprove that Europe can teach the US a thing or two when it comes to free market competition in this industry.
Just entered my postcode into broadbandchoices.co.uk. This was the result:
Colocated CLECs are not real competition, unless you mean for the marketing and billing service.
... and cue in one, two... no couldn't even get to three. Typing in my reply and as I type, up pops the first uninformed goon with
Ah really, it is just too god damned easy!
Really?
I would *love* to hear how the US with its virtual monopoly on broadband is in any way more "free" compared to Europe with healthy competition.
Seriously, please do "educate" me. Because rather a few textbooks are clearly in need of a serious revise.
And just like how Europe always operates, you end up fighting each other.
(the quote above you was about me)
pods
Ha!! You overestimate the desire to comprehend the real world amongst ZHedgers. Fox News viewers are way more informed than these bozos. If you can't form an incoherant conspiracy theory out of a piece of news then you haven't yet got yer daily drip feed of 'Hedged paranoia.
Also you may want to refrain from noting that you live in Europe, else you'll be bombarded with increasingly unhinged non sequiturs about socialism and sheep.
M
That must be why we're being protected from the Wall Street banks. Because they are publicly traded. LOL
Wow, good one. Wall street banks have gazillions of other laws to give them access to your ass.
Got another strawman?
pods
So now .Gov can do it.
The solution to which is a class action lawsuit against comcast - not an unlawful powergrab by an unconstitutional commission.
I'm not a coder or anything, but I know there are a lot of clever folks here who know code.
If & when, Net Neutrality starts to gain pace, I would supremely desire to be part of an ongoing information process whereby it could be established & learned the methods to 'end run' Net Neutrality.
IOW ~ ZH'ers need to use this period to establish 'THE OTHER WAY' while there's still time to do so.
Does anyone else agree with me?