Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
"Net neutrality is communism, folks! You don't want them liberal pinkos ruining the internet god graced us with!"
So imagine you live in a village with only 1 service provider. And it decides to slow all things related to the Republican Party because they received a donation from the Democrats. I guess you wouldn’t like that, but without net neutrality it’s possible. And you can’t switch ISP.

So how can the word neutral imply communism? They’re two complete opposites. It’s as stupid as claiming freedom of speech is communism.

And btw: god had nothing to do with the internet, science did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ezlivin
You 100% free market types should pick up a history book. Do you have any idea how many millions of lives government regulations have saved since the 19th century? If you really want to see what a completely free market looks like, go read about the age of the robber barons. Consumers and citizens absolutely deserve protection from corporate interests.

One example I always use is electricity.

Regulation is what gave everyone cheap, universally available electrical power and grids. Internet is actually pretty similar in a lot of ways.
 
Your comparison doesn't make sense because that's not what happened to Netflix. Also, you're completely forgetting all of these ISPs got their networks started, maintained, upgraded, heavily paid for by our tax dollars.

Exactly. Corporations don't own the airwaves or the internet. They lease those from US, the citizens of this country. I can't believe people are so willing to give up their rights to private corporations for some mythological free market. You don't have any voice in private corporations, so why give them the power to be content gatekeepers for PUBLIC airwaves?
 
So imagine you live in a village with only 1 service provider. And it decides to slow all things related to the Republican Party because they received a donation from the Democrats. I guess you wouldn’t like that, but without net neutrality it’s possible. And you can’t switch ISP.

So how can the word neutral imply communism? They’re two complete opposites. It’s as stupid as claiming freedom of speech is communism.

And btw: god had nothing to do with the internet, science did.

I think the guy was being sarcastic?
 
So imagine you live in a village with only 1 service provider. And it decides to slow all things related to the Republican Party because they received a donation from the Democrats. I guess you wouldn’t like that, but without net neutrality it’s possible. And you can’t switch ISP.

So how can the word neutral imply communism? They’re two complete opposites. It’s as stupid as claiming freedom of speech is communism.

And btw: god had nothing to do with the internet, science did.
He was joking, hagar.
 
My God this thread makes my head hurt. If you REALLY think Net Neutrality doesn't matter, or that the internet was "fine" before NN... with all due respect, you are completely misinformed. There's absolutely no reason not to be FOR Net Neutrality unless you're a CEO for a Telecom company. It's that simple!
 
I am no fan of the BBC. From the forced firings/redundencies of white male journalists to make room for diversity.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Radio-4-comic-told-need-women-minorities.html
To the cover ups of child rapists and massive pay outs for executives and talentless stars. Not too mention the totally unfair mannor in which the BBC is funded.

I'd say the only media outlet further left than the BBC is the Guardian.
Which is sad given the Guardian's slow drift rightward over the last few years. I gave up on trusting any news institutions years ago. Instead I read the framing they use to get to the bottom of why a message is projected a certain way. You'll find most of the time if you follow the money and look at the board of these companies they are so entwined with Arms Manufacturers and propagandist think tanks it's hard to believe anyone trusts them on anything at all.

I like to check the sites to see what the corporate media is talking about, then go to alternative sources to see what's actually going on in the world. The scary thing is an entire generation of real journalists are fading away. We just lost Robert Parry a few months bag, a man who had critical insight into all this Russia nonsense. Robert Fisk reported on the lies of gas attacks in Syria, not a peep in America on that (nor, curiously any reports from the literal busload of corporate journalists who traveled with him and witnessed the same things). God forbid what's going to happen after Chomsky finally kicks the bucket (though he's obviously got his own flaws). We're left with people like John Pilger, who is getting up there in age.

I try to stick with journalists who have a long history of holding truth to power. Parry was one of a few people who broke the Iran Contra story, Ray McGovern was so high up in the CIA that he was Reagan or Bush I's daily briefer (I forget which) and has stood up against the disastrous corruption of the agency since leaving (he just had his arm dislocated being dragged out of yesterday's CIA hearing). William Binney is not a journalist but provides the actual facts of how the NSA and international partners (Five Eyes) are literally gathering ALL data that traverses the internet, he knows because he set up the precursor to that program and resigned in disgust as Bush II took it in a total surveillance direction.

The world is nothing but lies if your worldview relies on tuning into the news. The ONE thing that could provide any hope to Americans is if "critical media literacy" was at the core of the educational system. A guy can dream...
 
You 100% free market types should pick up a history book. Do you have any idea how many millions of lives government regulations have saved since the 19th century? If you really want to see what a completely free market looks like, go read about the age of the robber barons. Consumers and citizens absolutely deserve protection from corporate interests.
They'd rather just blindly support the interests of billionaires who would gladly bleed every last penny out of them if they could. Because that's true freedom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tzm41 and Huntn
As part of a small business making "edutainment" products for college and grade schools, to teach various lab sciences... I'm happy that Unity3D finally added support for vector graphics as Adobe Flash is going away in 2020. Without NN, and carriers being allowed to freely throttle and block content of both edge providers (us software people) and their own customers, I fully expect needing to return to the days of ultra-light-weight applications (in terms of file size and data transmission). It's gonna put processing stress back on the end user's machines, but in a restricted bandwidth environment there isn't much of a choice.

I will agree that using the Title 2 club wasn't an elegant or sustainable long term solution. Congress needs to get off its butt and do its job to draft legislation. There is a way forward to both product customers (and yes edge service providers are customers of ISPs, they pay for data transmission services like everyone else), and address "estimated" regulatory burdens. The "losers" of such legislation should be Comcast, AT&T, Verzion, et. all that want market dominance and have a proven record of bad faith practices.

However such laws needed to come first. Title 2 should have remained in place until satisfactory laws could be written and passed. Since 2008 we've had clear evidence of repeated bad faith actions by major ISPs.

Does this have an effect on people using kodi and vpn’s??

Short answer is yes. Without NN ISPs can block, slow, or manipulate any traffic that goes across their network. If they don't want their customers using VPNs they can setup their network to block them. Just like China or Russia. Although it will likely be on the "slow it down" side. Blocking gets people mad, but if they quietly (without oversight) slow or degrade certain kinds of traffic to a crawl they may just be able to convince you pay more for "fast lane" bundles. Including a "fast lane" for your VPN.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: james2538
What was wrong with the internet before NN was put in place? Answer: Nothing Second Answer: We don't need government involved.

Keep the control freaks off the internet. It was fine pre-2015 without the Federal Government trying to stick their nose in the net and it will be fine now.

People and companies resolved things themselves without authoritarian fascist type policies requiring it.

The internet was fine before the Net Neutrality act. You'll most-likely notice no difference in internet usage. This also creates a more free and open market.

Man, 3 in a row, the pro-telecom trolls are out in force...

Let's actually walk through this, shall we?

While the current net neutrality *rules* were new, coming in 2015, they were a direct response to companies starting to abuse their power and had a lot of lead-up.

Before that point Net Neutrality, and generally treating traffic the same regardless of source and destination for common carriers, was the default standard. This has been true for *decades*. Internet access, initially, wasn't legally treated under common carrier laws the same way but in practice companies typically adhered to common carrier style data transit.

In the early aughts we started seeing some abuse of that, and the FCC pushed back a bit (for example http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/03/25/AR2005032501328.html ), but didnt do so comprehensively.

By 2007 a number of regulatory changes had made it easier for telcos to abuse their "on ramp" controls, and the consolidation of telco and media companies gave them more incentive to, which is when you got Comcast's infamous Bittorrent blocking which led to the 2008 FCC decision on comcast, overturned 2 years later because of how the FCC had classified internet providers and in turn led to a new set of rules from the at the end of 2010 to fix part of that, though since they still hadn't reclassified the providers a lot of that was in turn struck down in 2014.

Now we get to 2015, where the FCC, after a lot of political wrangling in congress that went nowhere, reclassified the providers as common carriers, and applied net neutrality.

tl;dr net neutrality is how the internet and telecoms have generally worked, you havent ever lived in a time when the internet was prevalent and net neutrality functionally wasn't, none of us have, and to claim otherwise because the current rules were finalized only 3 years ago is misleading at best and outright lying at worst.

(also, it should be noted, Berners-Lee, the "father of the internet, has a lot to say on making sure Net Neutrality stays too, like http://www.newsweek.com/net-neutrality-ajit-pai-fcc-code-red-world-wide-web-founder-917895 and https://twitter.com/timberners_lee/status/885100007749287936?lang=en )
 
Exactly. Corporations don't own the airwaves or the internet. They lease those from US, the citizens of this country. I can't believe people are so willing to give up their rights to private corporations for some mythological free market. You don't have any voice in private corporations, so why give them the power to be content gatekeepers for PUBLIC airwaves?
True free markets are synonymous with unregulated capitalism, a bad deal for average citizens.
 
Lol. Hardly any of those did any real damage. Also, one companies bad decision is another company's opportunity to capitalize on... AKA Free Market/Competition. I'm glad you googled a list tho without any true background.

Wow, so someone posts a list of things companies have done as evidence for why we need NN, and your best response is, “they didn’t do any real damage”? And what you really mean, is “those things didn’t effect me so I don’t care and will choose to ignore them.”
 
Which is sad given the Guardian's slow drift rightward over the last few years. I gave up on trusting any news institutions years ago. Instead I read the framing they use to get to the bottom of why a message is projected a certain way. You'll find most of the time if you follow the money and look at the board of these companies they are so entwined with Arms Manufacturers and propagandist think tanks it's hard to believe anyone trusts them on anything at all.

I like to check the sites to see what the corporate media is talking about, then go to alternative sources to see what's actually going on in the world. The scary thing is an entire generation of real journalists are fading away. We just lost Robert Parry a few months bag, a man who had critical insight into all this Russia nonsense. Robert Fisk reported on the lies of gas attacks in Syria, not a peep in America on that (nor, curiously any reports from the literal busload of corporate journalists who traveled with him and witnessed the same things). God forbid what's going to happen after Chomsky finally kicks the bucket (though he's obviously got his own flaws). We're left with people like John Pilger, who is getting up there in age.

I try to stick with journalists who have a long history of holding truth to power. Parry was one of a few people who broke the Iran Contra story, Ray McGovern was so high up in the CIA that he was Reagan or Bush I's daily briefer (I forget which) and has stood up against the disastrous corruption of the agency since leaving (he just had his arm dislocated being dragged out of yesterday's CIA hearing). William Binney is not a journalist but provides the actual facts of how the NSA and international partners (Five Eyes) are literally gathering ALL data that traverses the internet, he knows because he set up the precursor to that program and resigned in disgust as Bush II took it in a total surveillance direction.

The world is nothing but lies if your worldview relies on tuning into the news. The ONE thing that could provide any hope to Americans is if "critical media literacy" was at the core of the educational system. A guy can dream...
If you look at at entity like MSNBC vs Fox News, you’ll see a distinct difference, where one network may be selling a liberal agenda, but they are not lying their asses off like the other selling their pseudo-conservative corporatist, fascist agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ezlivin
Which is sad given the Guardian's slow drift rightward over the last few years. I gave up on trusting any news institutions years ago. Instead I read the framing they use to get to the bottom of why a message is projected a certain way. You'll find most of the time if you follow the money and look at the board of these companies they are so entwined with Arms Manufacturers and propagandist think tanks it's hard to believe anyone trusts them on anything at all.

I like to check the sites to see what the corporate media is talking about, then go to alternative sources to see what's actually going on in the world. The scary thing is an entire generation of real journalists are fading away. We just lost Robert Parry a few months bag, a man who had critical insight into all this Russia nonsense. Robert Fisk reported on the lies of gas attacks in Syria, not a peep in America on that (nor, curiously any reports from the literal busload of corporate journalists who traveled with him and witnessed the same things). God forbid what's going to happen after Chomsky finally kicks the bucket (though he's obviously got his own flaws). We're left with people like John Pilger, who is getting up there in age.

I try to stick with journalists who have a long history of holding truth to power. Parry was one of a few people who broke the Iran Contra story, Ray McGovern was so high up in the CIA that he was Reagan or Bush I's daily briefer (I forget which) and has stood up against the disastrous corruption of the agency since leaving (he just had his arm dislocated being dragged out of yesterday's CIA hearing). William Binney is not a journalist but provides the actual facts of how the NSA and international partners (Five Eyes) are literally gathering ALL data that traverses the internet, he knows because he set up the precursor to that program and resigned in disgust as Bush II took it in a total surveillance direction.

The world is nothing but lies if your worldview relies on tuning into the news. The ONE thing that could provide any hope to Americans is if "critical media literacy" was at the core of the educational system. A guy can dream...

The BBC and the Guardian have both heavily fallen down the identity politics rabbit hole in my opinion.
Personally I try and rely on reading from a range of news sources to get a better idea of what's happening.

The BBC is really bad on reporting on anything that sets immigrants and the EU migrant crises in a bad light then you have right wing sources like the daily mail paint a rather extreme misinformed viewpoint on a lot of stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NT1440
If you look at at entity like MSNBC vs Fox News, you’ll see a distinct difference, where one network may be selling a liberal agenda, but they are not lying their asses off like the other selling their pseudo-conservative corporatist, fascist agenda.
Sure, but when was the last time you saw them report on Net Neutrality? It was right before they were bought by Comcast. You should know who is in control of the economic narrative at that network. This it what bothers me about “liberals”, they’re good on social issues but have completely bought into the economic framework of neoliberalism which is the primary driver of the condition of the world over the last 40 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huntn
Sure, but when was the last time you saw them report on Net Neutrality? It was right before they were bought by Comcast. You should know who is in control of the economic narrative at that network. This it what bothers me about “liberals”, they’re good on social issues but have completely bought into the economic framework of neoliberalism which is the primary driver of the condition of the world over the last 40 years.
I can’t really argue with you.
 
If you don’t like Verizon doing that, go to AT&T then.

Netflix takes a lot of bandwidth. Should we also make UPS so it’s the same price to send a pencil as a engine for a lawnmower? That engine takes a lot more space than a pencil, doesn’t it?

Example: you’re sending your friend a pencil, and I’m sending my friend a new computer. Is it fair we pay the same price, or should I be charged more because I am taking more space in the UPS truck (bandwidth) than you are?

Dude, you're literally telling everyone you don't understand net neutrality with your post. It doesn't matter what the data is, you're paying for the bandwidth and should be able to use it how you want, there should be no limits on what data is transferred.
 
I can’t really argue with you.
I know we’ve butted heads in the past on this but I’m glad you get where I’m coming from. Of course I align with the social causes of the “left” in this country (while knowing that they don’t go nearly far enough to value humanity enough to even get us on an even level with most of the developed world, maternity/paternity leave as just a small example), it’s that use of social issues to deflect from societal and economic issues that infuriates me.

Case in point, Hillary Clinton actually stated on the campaign trail that punishing the banks wouldn’t solve racism in America (subtext being “so we’re not going to do anything to reel in their power”). I literally spat coffee all over my screen watching her say that. THAT part of the Democratic Party needs to be chased out of town. The good news is the majority of the democrats are far less corporate friendly, but the party is stuck under the leadership who is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ezlivin and Huntn
That's a pretty deceptive comparison. Netflix was being charged by the amount of bandwidth they consume. The ISPs wanted to charge them even more, because Netflix was taking away their video subscribers.


Better comparison: Imagine if the water company developed the tech to monitor water usage, and decided it wanted to charge you different rates for shower water vs toilet water, even though it's the same water. Net neutrality is simply: "Water is water, you cannot monitor usage and charge differently depending on how the customer uses it."


10 MB of video and 10 MB of e-books should have the same cost.


That's all net neutrality is.


Comcast etc are motivated to throttle video traffic because they are also large media companies, so getting people to use their video services is profitable. In true capitalism, you could avoid Comcast, but in reality, we have regional monopolies that make it impossible to avoid. Where I live, Comcast is the only option over 25 mbps.


Same deal with AT&T vs Verizon. Until recently, T-Mobile was crap in comparison, and both AT&T and Verizon were violating net neutrality, so what option does the consumer have if the FCC does not intervene?


Water meter is a bad example because you as the home owner own the pipes in the house. Now Comcast, AT&T, and others own the lines. Now there is a water meter on my house, and if I use more water than my neighbor, I pay more. So if my package takes more room in a delivery truck, I pay more. If a service uses more bandwidth.... well?
 
If the Politicians are so concerned about this, then they should have proposed a LAW a long time ago; instead they allowed an unelected bureaucratic system do the dirty work and when the rules change, the Politicians get upset. I am just tired of all the posturing we see from both sides. Find a solution, make it into Law and then go on to the next item. Start restricting the mess these agencies create for us. If you want it to be a Law, make it so....
 
Anti- Net Neutrality for hard core corporatists or suckers drinking conservative koolaid?

I know we’ve butted heads in the past on this but I’m glad you get where I’m coming from. Of course I align with the social causes of the “left” in this country (while knowing that they don’t go nearly far enough to value humanity enough to even get us on an even level with most of the developed world, maternity/paternity leave as just a small example), it’s that use of social issues to deflect from societal and economic issues that infuriates me.

Case in point, Hillary Clinton actually stated on the campaign trail that punishing the banks wouldn’t solve racism in America (subtext being “so we’re not going to do anything to reel in their power”). I literally spat coffee all over my screen watching her say that. THAT part of the Democratic Party needs to be chased out of town. The good news is the majority of the democrats are far less corporate friendly, but the party is stuck under the leadership who is.
There is a tight walk for Democrats running in Red States, they can’t sound too liberal, can’t be too corporatist, yet have to sound macho for the bubbas, like the ex-military guy with tattoos, can’t remember his name :( The thing is with the larger and larger sub middle class group, the populist message should be a grand slam in these Red States. Unfortunately, it’s things like civil rights, and other tradional Republican wedge issues that turns a lot of these people off and makes them vote against their own best interests. I won’t say how much I think IQ plays into some of this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ezlivin
Water meter is a bad example because you as the home owner own the pipes in the house. Now Comcast, AT&T, and others own the lines. Now there is a water meter on my house, and if I use more water than my neighbor, I pay more. So if my package takes more room in a delivery truck, I pay more. If a service uses more bandwidth.... well?

Did you fail to read the dozens of replies your previous post got?

Water is finite, space on a truck is finite, electricity is finite.
Data is effectively not.

Once you build the bandwidth the cost of delivering the data is essentially the same regardless of how much is used.

You clearly have absolutely no idea how the internet works if this is your reasoning and you're avoiding replying to people because you can't formulate an effective counter argument because there isn't one.

Also Netflix pays for the data at their end, the consumer through paying their ISP is paying for it at their end. Yet you seem to think the ISP's are entitled to double dip their customers? What sort of stupid, backwards logic are you applying here?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.