Net Neutrality (US)

[Dragoman]

Which 'extra services' are you referring to? There are only two main services for any given internet service, data speed and data limit.

Well,my isp also a telecom company too so it also provides telphone services to me so they usually take extra bucks from me just get first 100 calls free of charge.Since i am so poor and i talk too much on my telephone,i have to charge extra for this.Not that this has to do anything with net neutrality though, i was just saying.

 

[anne O'nymous]

I'll just comment this, because... well, "because".

Obama knew once he left office, Net Neutrality would be dead. That's why he also tried to sell the rights to the Internet to another country, so they could do the same thing he had planned.

Selling what rights ? No, seriously, answer me here. For you, what rights can the president of the USA sell regarding to internet ? Not even asking which country can be dumb enough to buy what he already have.

The protocols definitions, as well as their implementations, are neither patented nor can be patented. The cables/fibers are owned by private companies all around the world, a minority are US based companies. And finally the machines are owned by private companies and individuals, once again all around the world and a minority are US based companies/individuals.

There's not a single part of internet, as global entity, which is owned by an US society, even less by the USA as country. In fact, there isn't a single part of internet, still as global entity, which can be owned by someone, whatever it's a society or a country. Internet, yet as global entity, isn't even really an US invention, and far less an US thing.
Even in countries like China or North Korea, where there's a massive filtering barrier, the government can't say that it own internet as seen from the inside of the country.

I would note one single thing, that an advanced user who would use P2P/FTP/Torrents would more than likely have the wherewithal to understand how to get around something as simple as port blocking. Still, a fair point.

It depend how far the port blocking goes and how addicted to P2P you are. But mostly it's no use for advanced users, yes.
I remember the early 2000 here. An Australian based ISP tried to offer an unlimited free over phone internet access. But here "unlimited" was a trap. It was unlimited in time, but there were a lot of ports blocking behind. They were sued by their customers but, as far as I remember, the case was never sealed, neither even started to reach court, because advanced users started to spread how-to bypass the limitations. This made them not only step back, but also stop all business.
But well, we have 50 times less inhabitants than the USA and ISP which weren't filtering content, so it was easier to revolt against this and have real results behind.

 

[EvilMonkey]

Net neutrality as I understand it covers the unbiased flow of information to whoever requests it. The danger with the loss of neutrality refers to the ISP's/Internet Service Providers picking and choosing what information get's priority. Slowing down traffic for those services that it doesn't think deserve it and giving a fast connection for those services that they deem do. Net Neutrality was introduced because this was already a "thing" when ISP's thought they could get away with it and bandwidth was being choked so they prioritised services they "preferred" or were getting kickbacks from.

 

[treos]

Net neutrality as I understand it covers the unbiased flow of information to whoever requests it. The danger with the loss of neutrality refers to the ISP's/Internet Service Providers picking and choosing what information get's priority. Slowing down traffic for those services that it doesn't think deserve it and giving a fast connection for those services that they deem do. Net Neutrality was introduced because this was already a "thing" when ISP's thought they could get away with it and bandwidth was being choked so they prioritised services they "preferred" or were getting kickbacks from.

that's exactly what it does. well, there's more to it but it's a big reason why ISPs can't monopolize internet services in certain regions and it helps prevent them from throttling your connection unless you paid them to "un-throttle" it. which is also why companies like netflix (among others) would have to pay a ransom to have them not throttle their streaming service.

how anyone could think losing net neutrality would be a good thing is beyond me as the loss would only serve to benefit the bigger ISPs who DO want to try and monopolize it.

as for the netflix thing mentioned above. if that were to happen, the end users (like you and me) would see prices go up as well cause we'd likely have to foot part of the bill which another reason why no one wants to lose net neutrality.

 

[muttdoggy]

Honestly, Net Neutrality was a sham. It was anything but neutral. I don't know if anyone here has ever heard of the Fairness Act, but that had to do with radio. It was a way to kill talk radio completely. That's exactly what Net Neutrality would have done to the Internet. It would hvae eventually killed free speech. You would have only been able to see what the government allowed you to see, and do, for that matter. Anything you said that would have been found offensive would have had you banned from the Internet, or worse, arrested. Obama knew once he left office, Net Neutrality would be dead. That's why he also tried to sell the rights to the Internet to another country, so they could do the same thing he had planned. But no one wanted to touch it because it was too much of a hot potato. Whether you believe me or not is your choice. I'm not here to argue, just state things as I know them and see them. BTW, Merry Christmas everyone!

Umm... where'd you hear that from?
Cuz I want whatever the speaker was SMOKING! That's gotta be some really good psychedelic shit he/she is smoking! Holy cow! That's on the same level as the line about space aliens running earth from a base on the moon! Oh wait, was I supposed to reveal that?

 

[DSSAlex]

It sounds functionally pretty similar to what Alex Jones said back when the Net Neutrality rules were enacted in the first place. So take off your shirt and eat poorly barbequed ribs if you want to get into that mind set.

 

[Cyan]

It sounds functionally pretty similar to what Alex Jones said back when the Net Neutrality rules were enacted in the first place. So take off your shirt and eat poorly barbequed ribs if you want to get into that mind set.

Do people watch Alex Jones for legitimate political commentary? I know of a handful of people who watch him, but all of them do so because he's so fucking hilarious.

God bless those Alex Jones memes.

 

[Elpescador]

"Net Neutrality" is a worthy enough goal... worthy enough in fact to warrant it's own, completely new piece of legislation. One that expresses the ideals of neutrality could be less than a page and would pass easily... So why didn't the Obama administration do that?

Instead they regulated (Yes, it was federal, central govt regulation of the internet) using a law from the 1930s which was passed before television was common place which doesn't mention throttling, isps, paid prioritization, bandwidth, Netflix or any other neutrality buzzword but did in fact give the federal govt unlimited power to regulate content on the net the same way it has the power to regulate content on radio or television.

Using an ancient law passed by people who thought Mussolini was an economic genius and the little German corporal was the progressive leader of the future during arguably the most authoritarian regimes in American history would never make the internet "more free". Regulation is the opposite of freedom... and that was the problem.

Most of the things people worry about with neutrality are already prosecutable by the FTC as it is... and if we're an internet provider, the very best thing for my bottom line a competitor could possibly do... is to throttle Netflix (which is what the left is fear mongering about) giving me a competitive advantage in 100 million American households.

 

[treos]

Most of the things people worry about with neutrality are already prosecutable by the FTC as it is... and if we're an internet provider, the very best thing for my bottom line a competitor could possibly do... is to throttle Netflix (which is what the left is fear mongering about) giving me a competitive advantage in 100 million American households.

with netflix increasing their prices thus making the consumers foot the ransom payments at least partly. i'm certain there are better ways to make a profit WITHOUT exploiting the consumers... but i doubt anyone wants to put any effort into creating such a solution.

 

[Cyan]

"Net Neutrality" is a worthy enough goal... worthy enough in fact to warrant it's own, completely new piece of legislation. One that expresses the ideals of neutrality could be less than a page and would pass easily... So why didn't the Obama administration do that?

Obama couldn't even get Republicans to agree that water was wet. They wouldn't work with Obama to get any legislation passed, especially legislation he really wanted. If you want to say that it's his fault he wasn't able to push through that legislation anyways, then I'd probably agree - but that's not the same thing. He did the next best thing he could, an executive order (not exactly an executive order, but you get the idea) - not great, not terrible. It immediately stopped Comcast from stealing from Netflix - and thereby the American consumers... sort of.

Instead they regulated (Yes, it was federal, central govt regulation of the internet) using a law from the 1930s which was passed before television was common place which doesn't mention throttling, isps, paid prioritization, bandwidth, Netflix or any other neutrality buzzword but did in fact give the federal govt unlimited power to regulate content on the net the same way it has the power to regulate content on radio or television.

Using an ancient law passed by people who thought Mussolini was an economic genius and the little German corporal was the progressive leader of the future during arguably the most authoritarian regimes in American history would never make the internet "more free". Regulation is the opposite of freedom... and that was the problem.

Agreed, it wasn't perfect, or even great - it was barely decent... however it's better than the alternative IMO.

Also, 'freedom' is not the goal for net neutrality. Freedom in this context would be the freedom to steal from companies, or have them face the consequences of bandwidth throttles. The goal - is equality; meaning ISP's can't snub sites or content that they don't agree with, or didn't receive a bribe. If you want to say that means companies shouldn't have 'freedom' to do what they want, then I'd probably agree with that... depending on what the legislation says exactly. (Companies shouldn't have the 'freedom' to poison water supplies if it gives them more profits - not remotely the same as neutrality, but it's just an example)

Still, point taken.

Most of the things people worry about with neutrality are already prosecutable by the FTC as it is... and if we're an internet provider, the very best thing for my bottom line a competitor could possibly do... is to throttle Netflix (which is what the left is fear mongering about) giving me a competitive advantage in 100 million American households.

I'm... not really sure what you're arguing for here. I'm not sure if it's how you wrote it or if it's how I'm reading it; I don't understand what you're saying.

 

[Dollars303]

ICANN runs the internet. Without them there is no way to get a domain name and they have the right to take away names too. ICANN is under the department of commerce and is therefore subject to US government controls. The UN has cried about this for some time. Net Neutrality would be great if it ran both ways with some checks and balances but it didn't as written in 2015. That's why it was gotten rid but i do agree that some checks and balances need to be in place. I think both parties need to come together to write them so it'd be something no one is happy with but everyone can live with as all good compromises are. The rules in 2015 completly favored one side over the other and that's a good way to have them thrown out when the other side comes to power.

 

[anne O'nymous]

ICANN is under the department of commerce and is therefore subject to US government controls.

Not exactly.
As society registered in California, they must follow US Laws, but they can't be under government control more than any other society registered in the USA. There's the contract linking them to the US government since the creation of the ICANN, themselves and a lot of governments around the world, as well as UN, think that this contract is obsolete since the goals it fixed have been reach at the end of 2009. The fact that the US government forgot (let's say they just forgot) to answer when the ICANN talked about this don't change the facts.
They oversee internet mostly by administrating the root DNS, top level domains (.com, .us,.nl, .whatever), and the allocation of IP netblocks (range of IP addresses). But they are mandatory by will, not by obligation. The ICANN enforce the rules, act as mediator and take the decisions, but they don't act as intermediary. The ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, LATNIC and AfriNIC already have good relations and can agree to the netblock division without the help of the ICANN. Creation of a new domain name and attribution of an IP address to it, imply the Root DNS, the registars (societies in charge of domain name attribution), and the societies/agencies in charge of the top level domains, and they don't need the intervention of the ICANN to achieve this. Therefore, they aren't the central point of the network, just the central point for decisions because each society/agency involved on the network are member of the ICANN.

If tomorrow the US government decide to put the ICANN under control to force its decision, and in the same time justice say that the contract linking them is still relevant, forcing the ICANN to obey, the network will just works without its help. They have no legal power, they can't force the different actors of internet to obey, not even the US based ones. And in the end a new entity will be created to take its place. In the worse case, the USA will be cut from the rest of the world. Societies/agencies from the rest of the world will stop to work with the US based root DNS and US based registers/registars. And the only consequence will be the impossibility to register a com/net/org domain (and some more), that's all.
The only sensitive agency is the ARIN, which manage IP addresses for North America. But they will not start to mess with the netblocks because they can't. If they start using netblocks already attributed to another RIR, it will be like
Russian roulette. Because the USA isn't the biggest part of the world, there will have few chances to reach the right server, and high chances to reach the server with the IP address allocated by another RIR. Even if it was 90% chances to reach the right server, I'm sure that their customers could find many way to sue them because of this.

 

[megadork]

Legally, it's a bit of a grey area. Kinda

When gambling, the idea is that you put up X amount of currency, and then there is an % chance to receive goods/services/currency from X-Y (typically 0, or nothing), up to X+Y (Where the upper range of Y would be something much more valuable depending on the chances). Higher risk, higher reward - Sound about right?

Say for example, you buy a trading card pack - and by your accounts it's a really terrible pack; nothing in there that you want or value. There's not really a problem with this, so long as what you received is worth what you paid for - meaning there's no potential for loss, and only the potential for gain. Of course, it's sometimes hard to quantify what the worth of items are (especially virtual items) when there's not a real market for them (you can't (re)sell in-game items or loot crates typically, for example).

Naturally it's a lot easier when it comes to trading cards than it does for games, slot machines or fantasy football - since there's no actual(physical) goods or services you receive if you 'lose' your 'bet'. All that is an extremely rudimentary explanation, but you get the idea.

It's hard for me to come to a conclusion about what I think about all of this. Because I don't want those annoying micro-transaction systems and loot crates, but I also don't want governments coming in and destroying things that clearly aren't gambling, simply because these issues are so hard to define. It would be nice if consumers had the capability to mass protest/boycott those systems out of existence without getting governments involved at all - that's about the only good solution I can come up with.

I'm still not seeing what gambling has to do with net neutrality.....maybe i'm dense.

 

[Cyan]

I'm still not seeing what gambling has to do with net neutrality.....maybe i'm dense.

You're absolutely correct, my apologies.