The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:22 pm Posts: 4377 Location: faked by jorge
so this whole battle is over the initial classifications of broadband providers and ISPs. what bothers me is these rules, parts of which have been struck down, but even what's still in place, are the only things that keep these major corporations from having a strangle hold on the public's usage of the internet - and as far as I knew, the internet IS a public right of way - just because the infrastructure isn't doesn't change that... these courts know the decisions they pass down now will cause damage to the freedom of access to information online yet the thrust of the argument is over what the classification of the carriers are - it's a tawdry and dirty way to win a fight, and these corporations have no problem using it.
_________________
Dev wrote:
you're delusional. you are a sad sad person. fuck off. you're mentally ill beyond repair. i don't need your shit. dissapear.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:24 pm Posts: 2868 Location: Death Machine Inc's HQ
malice wrote:
so this whole battle is over the initial classifications of broadband providers and ISPs. what bothers me is these rules, parts of which have been struck down, but even what's still in place, are the only things that keep these major corporations from having a strangle hold on the public's usage of the internet - and as far as I knew, the internet IS a public right of way - just because the infrastructure isn't doesn't change that... these courts know the decisions they pass down now will cause damage to the freedom of access to information online yet the thrust of the argument is over what the classification of the carriers are - it's a tawdry and dirty way to win a fight, and these corporations have no problem using it.
It's not really, it's just regulated as such.
This is a tricky one for me, I understand and agree with points on both sides. Verizon is basically subsidizing Google and Netflix, but without neutrality we wouldn't have those services.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:04 pm Posts: 37156 Location: September 2020 Poster of the Month
I can understand the Telecom side of the argument from an idealistic market point of view, but a more pragmatic look at the reality of how the Internet is used and what the benefits of it are lead most people to side with the open Internet perspective.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:22 pm Posts: 4377 Location: faked by jorge
broken iris wrote:
malice wrote:
so this whole battle is over the initial classifications of broadband providers and ISPs. what bothers me is these rules, parts of which have been struck down, but even what's still in place, are the only things that keep these major corporations from having a strangle hold on the public's usage of the internet - and as far as I knew, the internet IS a public right of way - just because the infrastructure isn't doesn't change that... these courts know the decisions they pass down now will cause damage to the freedom of access to information online yet the thrust of the argument is over what the classification of the carriers are - it's a tawdry and dirty way to win a fight, and these corporations have no problem using it.
It's not really, it's just regulated as such.
This is a tricky one for me, I understand and agree with points on both sides. Verizon is basically subsidizing Google and Netflix, but without neutrality we wouldn't have those services.
if it's not a public right of way - I'm having trouble with why the government is implementing programs that provide cheap or free internet services to low income homes?
at the heart of this, giving control to the large corporations will not only allow a monopoly but turn the internet into a service that can only be accessed by people with the ability to pay the fees imposed by these corporations. last time I checked, none of those companies gave a damn about more than their ability to make a profit, which we see what that did to the health care industry...
_________________
Dev wrote:
you're delusional. you are a sad sad person. fuck off. you're mentally ill beyond repair. i don't need your shit. dissapear.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:24 pm Posts: 2868 Location: Death Machine Inc's HQ
malice wrote:
at the heart of this, giving control to the large corporations will not only allow a monopoly but turn the internet into a service that can only be accessed by people with the ability to pay the fees imposed by these corporations.
But isn't that what it already is? We pay our ISPs, they pay the backbone providers, etc... I think the biggest problem is that huge portions of the American (and global) economy developed based on the assumption of net neutrality between the host and the browser. To change it now would be like you said, akin to extortion.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:22 pm Posts: 4377 Location: faked by jorge
broken iris wrote:
malice wrote:
at the heart of this, giving control to the large corporations will not only allow a monopoly but turn the internet into a service that can only be accessed by people with the ability to pay the fees imposed by these corporations.
But isn't that what it already is? We pay our ISPs, they pay the backbone providers, etc... I think the biggest problem is that huge portions of the American (and global) economy developed based on the assumption of net neutrality between the host and the browser. To change it now would be like you said, akin to extortion.
we do pay our ISPs, obviously. the danger is that as an unregulated industry (since the gov't can't classify them as part of the telecom industry I guess), and with no binding rules in place, there is nothing that stops them from abusing that power to charge for service. the future practices of these companies, (as in, how much they can squeeze out of the public) will depend on the rules that are in place now.
really this is like all industries, every one of which could likely be cited for abuse of power in pursuit of profits, has there ever been a virtuous industry out there that worked to keep their products/services affordable and accessible for the greater good of the society? none that I can think of - when there's no controls in place, industry goes wild polluting the air and water, denying access to medical care, whatever. that's what the government is supposed to watchdog against. I mean, capitalism only truly thrives when there's a fair marketplace to deal with. without it it's all in the hands of the corporations.
_________________
Dev wrote:
you're delusional. you are a sad sad person. fuck off. you're mentally ill beyond repair. i don't need your shit. dissapear.
Our company is in an uproar about this because a major competitor is partnered with Warner. Hypothetically, Warner could choke access to the resources we provide. This would be particularly devastating to us because our products are media heavy and require a decent amount of bandwidth. But we are in the educational industry and even though we are a "for profit" company, I find it hard to believe that the government would allow ISPs to essential block access to educational resources.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:24 pm Posts: 2868 Location: Death Machine Inc's HQ
Netflix and Comcast made a deal this weekend to ensure "a certain service level" for Netflix. Total coincidence of course, since Comcast throttling them would be a violation of net neutrality laws.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum