GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently July 16 18, 3:59 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: December 15 16, 9:32 am 
Online
has a link from 538 to share
User avatar

Joined: December 31 69, 6:00 pm
Posts: 34277
Location: Chicago, IL
Quote:
Democratic FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said Thursday he will leave the agency Jan. 20, ending months of will-he or won’t-he speculation about his plans.


Quote:
Chief among the GOP targets are Wheeler's net neutrality rules, passed last year, which require internet service providers to treat all web traffic equally. The rules reclassify broadband akin to a utility making it subject to stricter oversight. Republicans called the regulations burdensome on companies, and the telecom industry has sued — so far unsuccessfully — to overturn them.


Link


Now corporations will get to discriminate against certain websites or people on the internet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: December 15 16, 9:49 am 
Online
darjeeling sipping elite
User avatar

Joined: October 17 06, 11:19 am
Posts: 34137
Location: Walking down Main St getting to know the concrete
Can Trump complete the corporatization of all aspects of life by the end of his term?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: December 15 16, 10:21 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: October 12 06, 2:21 pm
Posts: 14712
Location: Baseball Ref Bullpen
lukethedrifter wrote:
Can Trump complete the corporatization of all aspects of life by the end of his term?

How about the end of January?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: December 15 16, 2:32 pm 
Offline
Has an anecdote about a townie he overheard.
User avatar

Joined: December 6 10, 1:09 am
Posts: 10732
Location: Illinois
Maybe this will wake up young people? Nah probably not.


This is almost worth fighting for, like real fighting. If they do this then they control speech and then it's all over.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: December 15 16, 11:51 pm 
Offline
http://tinyurl.com/2e4x5hy

Joined: April 15 06, 6:25 pm
Posts: 24786
Location: St. Louis
This is worth fighting for, like real fighting. If they do this then they control speech and then it's all over.[/quote]

Net neutrality is a HUGE issue. I have no idea what the anti-net neutrality argument is, other than preferential treatment on the interwebz. Again, conservatives who are all for less govt involvement. Speak up!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: December 16 16, 8:00 am 
Online
"I could totally eat a person if it were a life/death situation"
User avatar

Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Posts: 22274
Location: Thinking of the Children
planet planet wrote:
This is worth fighting for, like real fighting. If they do this then they control speech and then it's all over.


Net neutrality is a HUGE issue. I have no idea what the anti-net neutrality argument is, other than preferential treatment on the interwebz. Again, conservatives who are all for less govt involvement. Speak up![/quote]
My guess is the conservative angle is less govt involvement and let the companies control the internet. So, if comcast wants to ban access to gatewayredbirds.com (or netflix or amazon video or hulu) who is the govt to say they can't. That's my guess. I find it ridiculous.

There are times for less regulations, but preventing internet providers from blocking access to reasonable sites is not one of them.

Edited to say: My other guess is that this will get spun into some weird dark internet argument. Should comcast be allowed to block access to ilikelittleboys.com and the likes even though that's an absurd argument but one conservatives can definitely get behind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: December 16 16, 8:09 am 
Offline
a bad penny always turns up
User avatar

Joined: April 17 06, 12:27 pm
Posts: 23395
Location: Hanging out with my redneck, white socks and Blue Ribbon beer.
The writing was on the wall when Michael bailed on us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: December 16 16, 8:53 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 17295
Location: Low A Minors
This same thing happening across tons of other sectors - i.e. large companies using government to make things harder/costlier on smaller competitors - is a big reason economic mobility is not what it used to be in this country.

Another thing that I could see happening is some internet provider positioning itself as the "neutral" one - they'd vow to keep net neutrality while others wouldn't. The internet could fragment into channels. Which is great because our society wasn't divided enough already.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: December 16 16, 9:43 am 
Online
"I could totally eat a person if it were a life/death situation"
User avatar

Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Posts: 22274
Location: Thinking of the Children
pioneer98 wrote:
This same thing happening across tons of other sectors - i.e. large companies using government to make things harder/costlier on smaller competitors - is a big reason economic mobility is not what it used to be in this country.

Another thing that I could see happening is some internet provider positioning itself as the "neutral" one - they'd vow to keep net neutrality while others wouldn't. The internet could fragment into channels. Which is great because our society wasn't divided enough already.

But, there's so much of a monopoly or oligopoly I guess that it won't matter. Look at the resources tehse companies are using to keep google fiber from getting installed on utility poles and in easements.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: December 16 16, 9:45 am 
Offline
MLB.TV Customer Support
User avatar

Joined: July 3 06, 2:19 pm
Posts: 8115
Location: Indianapolis
planet planet wrote:
Net neutrality is a HUGE issue. I have no idea what the anti-net neutrality argument is, other than preferential treatment on the interwebz. Again, conservatives who are all for less govt involvement. Speak up!

I believe the argument against it is about bandwidth and not about censorship. My networking knowledge is pretty limited so I may be a little off on this example but bear with me.

Their argument is say you have a person on a neighborhood block and that block is using Comcast Cable Internet. There's fixed bandwidth for the whole block - only so many bits can flow at a time. If you give every person and every site has equal priority, a high value customer trying to access a high value site could see lags in speed. Or someone could be using high amounts of bandwidth to torrent (legally or illegally) or be streaming tons of 4k Netflix at peak usage hours and the whole block would have a worse experience.

So if net neutrality was to go away, Comcast could throttle usage to individuals or certain sites. Say accepting money from Netflix or Google or Breitbart or HuffPo to get priority on delivery. So if the torrent guy is clogging bandwidth, they could throttle his speeds down and let the user trying to access Netflix get priority. So the "free market" wins out because destinations with more demand - Netflix and Google would win out over lower demand and result in a better experience for the majority.

There's two obvious problems with this; if an ISP doesn't have to be neutral they can throttle service to sites and charge both the user and provider for access. Imagine having to pay an extra $10/month to be allowed to access Netflix. And then Netflix getting charged $10/month per user in an area to have higher priority bandwidth. An ISP can obviously block a site and charge you AND the site owner to access it but this is a law of unintended consequences result not one opponents of the regulatory system cite as a goal. The general response is "free market" and "people won't use the service then, so they won't do that".

Cause that's how the free market works, right? Wrong. Most places allow ISP's to have a monopoly. I can't get Comcast at my house because the city says Bright House is the cable provider in the area. They are trying to avoid situations like this (spoilered for size):
Spoiler: show
Image
Which I think most can agree is for the public good. I work from my home and require internet access to do my job. If Bright House decided they wanted to block youtube without an extra fee, I'd either have to move, find office space in a different area of the city for hundreds of dollars a month, or shovel out the extra cash to them for a necessary if infrequently used resource for my job.

tl;dr : Telecoms should be allowed to charge and throttle access to high usage sites to provide the best service to the majority of customers. The "invisible hand" will prevent ISPs from abusing their ability to blatantly block sites.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Donnie Ebert, ghostrunner, Smith Corks One and 11 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

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group