Right Wing Media lies about Net Neutrality

[DieHappy]

Yeah. That makes a lot of sense.

Let's multiply this scene 2 or 3 times, shall we?

Are you claiming that San Fransisco's electrical grid is purely free market?

 

[DeathMagus]

Are you claiming that San Fransisco's electrical grid is purely free market?

Not remotely. Why do you ask?

 

[sword_of_truth]

Whatever the net is, it's still a tool for democratic free speech and a defence against tyrrany. Be assured, by whatever means, the tyrranical regimes on this planet understand this and will do whatever is necessary to control free speech. This happens now in China. The architecture is being put in place to do the same for the west. This is a battle for freedom, not packets and ISPs.

 

[Umaro]

Whatever the net is, it's still a tool for democratic free speech and a defence against tyrrany. Be assured, by whatever means, the tyrranical regimes on this planet understand this and will do whatever is necessary to control free speech. This happens now in China. The architecture is being put in place to do the same for the west. This is a battle for freedom, not packets and ISPs.

This is true, but what people need to realize here is that the government is on our side this time. The internet currently runs with net neutrality, and we need to make sure that never changes. Cable companies are already fighting it.

 

[DieHappy]

Not remotely. Why do you ask?

So that picture is the result of government managing the distribution of electricity?

I'm wondering how you make the leap to privatization making things worse. That seems counter-intuitive. "See how bad it is with the government? Private would be worse!" There doesn't seem to be anything to base that on.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Net neutrality is a contradiction, because one major corporation is telling us all what to do: the government. What if I want my ISP to give priority to video traffic? What if I want my ISP to throttle spam mails? What if I want my ISP to block DOS attacks? What if I want my ISP to block bittorrent? I should have that choice and so should my ISP. But if Net "Neutrality" takes place, I can't choose that because Umaro and his buddies don't want me to. They know what I need best. They're in control.

That's ultimately what this is about: the statists manufacturing another crisis as an excuse to pass more laws for the sake of control.

 

[Umaro]

Net neutrality is a contradiction, because one major corporation is telling us all what to do: the government. What if I want my ISP to give priority to video traffic? What if I want my ISP to throttle spam mails? What if I want my ISP to block DOS attacks? What if I want my ISP to block bittorrent? I should have that choice and so should my ISP. But if Net "Neutrality" takes place, I can't choose that because Umaro and his buddies don't want me to. They know what I need best. They're in control.

That's ultimately what this is about: the statists manufacturing another crisis as an excuse to pass more laws for the sake of control.

What if I wanted to make an ISP that won't load libertarian and conservative websites? What if that ISP was already as established as the current ones are? There will be problems if private corporations control all information on the internet.

 

[KarateCowboy]

What if I wanted to make an ISP that won't load libertarian and conservative websites?

Then I imagine you would not have many customers.

What if that ISP was already as established as the current ones are?

Then I imagine that ISP would lose a lot of business.

There will be problems if private corporations control all information on the internet.

This is ridiculous scaremongering. The internet has been around quite some time. Why haven't they done that yet? Can you make a legitimate case that these problems are occurring and widespread enough to warrant this?

 

[Umaro]

Then I imagine you would not have many customers.

Then I imagine that ISP would lose a lot of business.

This is ridiculous scaremongering. The internet has been around quite some time. Why haven't they done that yet? Can you make a legitimate case that these problems are occurring and widespread enough to warrant this?

Verizon Violates Net Neutrality with DNS Deviations | Freedom to Tinker

Comcast really does block BitTorrent traffic after all | Politics and Law - CNET News

Verizon Admits Blocking 4Chan Site Affiliates | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

 

[Zlex]

Postal" neutrality would prohibet Federal Express from charging money for high quality express service on the public Interstates.

Everything would move at the efficiency of the US Postal Service, except worse: all correspondence would travel in easily opened envelopes that were subject to the beer bottle throwing whims of every bored 14 year old in the world. Too bad if businesses wanted to pay a premium for something that actually worked, equality in everything is our goal, and by that we mean, nothing above the reach of the lowest among us.

In this age, if some act has the word 'neutrality' or 'fairness' in it, it is a sign to run.

What I am surprised at is the apparent limit to the limitless 'Commerce clause.' How did they fail in this instance to find everything they could possibly need in that Magic pair of words?

A premium express lane that made a reasonable effort at keeping the riff-raff at arms length would be well worth the extra premium.

I say, too bad if the 'neutrality loving riff-raff wouldn't like that. They can be as neutral as they want on the dirt roads.

 

[JustOneWay]

The internet has been around quite some time.

Quite some time? lol. (It seems like) just yesterday I was programming hex on an 8088. There was no internet as we know it....

 

[DeathMagus]

So that picture is the result of government managing the distribution of electricity?

That picture is the result of the government limiting the number of electrical providers to one.

Is your contention that multiple competing companies would make for fewer power lines?

I'm wondering how you make the leap to privatization making things worse. That seems counter-intuitive. "See how bad it is with the government? Private would be worse!" There doesn't seem to be anything to base that on.

"See how bad it is even with the government limiting the number of providers, therefore limiting the number of lines necessary to service the residence? 2-4 times that many companies would be worse!"

Make sense now?

 

[KarateCowboy]

Verizon Violates Net Neutrality with DNS Deviations | Freedom to Tinker

Comcast really does block BitTorrent traffic after all | Politics and Law - CNET News

Verizon Admits Blocking 4Chan Site Affiliates | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

4chan is not a conservative site.

So you have two companies blocking filthy sites and illegal file exchanges. That's a far cry from some weird complex blocking the news to manipulate the millions.

I like the way Zlex put it. We should have Postal Neutrality laws. All packages and envelopes should be forced to be treated equally. None of this "overnight shipping" and whatnot. At the same time, how about driving neutrality? All cars should be forced to go the same speed, no matter what road. All freeways should be 10 mph tops --the same as school zones. Perhaps we should implement posting neutrality rules on CF. No one may post more frequently or with larger posts than the least frequent poster. That way, everyone would be treated fairly.

 

[Umaro]

4chan is not a conservative site.

So you have two companies blocking filthy sites and illegal file exchanges. That's a far cry from some weird complex blocking the news to manipulate the millions.

Why does it matter if its a conservative site? You asked for examples of Net Neutrality being broken. It is bad to shut down an entire site because of a few people abusing it. The torrenting one is even worse. Torrenting is not illegal, it is just another way to transfer information. It's the same as megaupload, but the large corporation decided it was going to block it's traffic flow.

 

[GodGunsAndGlory]

Verizon Violates Net Neutrality with DNS Deviations | Freedom to Tinker

Comcast really does block BitTorrent traffic after all | Politics and Law - CNET News

Verizon Admits Blocking 4Chan Site Affiliates | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

1. Is a lie because its actually when you type in a domain name(ie freedom-ot-tinker.com will go to their search page, but freedom-to-tinker will bring you to your default search browser) and every single ISP does it, hardly illegal.

2. Get a rapidshare account... 1 year... $80. Torrents suck majorly, cannot download stuff at a 6th of your typical download rate and browse the internet, so obviously there is something about torrents that cause major problems.

3. Sounds like a hardware firewall blocking more than a blocking. Also, I fail to see how blocking 4Chan has anything to do with net neutrality, it seems more like a grasp at straws. Oh yeah it was Verizon Wireless that blocked it.

 

[citizenthom]

So wait...the argument is now, "unless we have net neutrality, I'll have to learn to type website names properly, won't be able to steal music and movies illegally, and won't be able to get into websites suspected of hosting dangerous malware while said accusations are being investigated?"

As I said earlier, though, you guys are missing the point: the real question is not whether net neutrality is good or bad. It's whether the government--specifically the FCC--has any business controlling the Internet. And if you think government control of the Internet is good for free speech, you're insane.

 

[DeathMagus]

So wait...the argument is now, "unless we have net neutrality, I'll have to learn to type website names properly, won't be able to steal music and movies illegally, and won't be able to get into websites suspected of hosting dangerous malware while said accusations are being investigated?"

1. Standards exist for a reason.

2. Torrenting isn't illegal.

3. Where does the news story mention suspicions of malware, and/or an investigation?

 

[Maren]

Postal" neutrality would prohibet Federal Express from charging money for high quality express service on the public Interstates.

Everything would move at the efficiency of the US Postal Service, except worse: all correspondence would travel in easily opened envelopes that were subject to the beer bottle throwing whims of every bored 14 year old in the world. Too bad if businesses wanted to pay a premium for something that actually worked, equality in everything is our goal, and by that we mean, nothing above the reach of the lowest among us.

In this age, if some act has the word 'neutrality' or 'fairness' in it, it is a sign to run.

What I am surprised at is the apparent limit to the limitless 'Commerce clause.' How did they fail in this instance to find everything they could possibly need in that Magic pair of words?

A premium express lane that made a reasonable effort at keeping the riff-raff at arms length would be well worth the extra premium.

I say, too bad if the 'neutrality loving riff-raff wouldn't like that. They can be as neutral as they want on the dirt roads.

Your example doesn't work. Fed Ex wouldn't change under Net Neutrality. Fed Ex works because they have bought a fleet of planes to move their packages around overnight and because they minimize the time it takes to process the packages while they are on the ground.

To move this to an Internet example -- they are still free to buy their own super high speed pipes that only they can use (internal network) in order to make their traffic faster. As for processing times on the ground, that would be having super fast computers that are able faster than others that can pull up the requested information and get it back into the pipes faster than anyone else.

All Net Neutrality does is state that they can't slow other people's packages down to make sure theirs gets out faster. To go back to the Fed Ex example, they can't load a plane and immediately take off, they still have to get in line according to the instructions of the tower. Their trucks can't ignore stop signs or stop lights that everyone else has to stop at.

And the premium express still exists -- you can get very cheap internet by getting service through a company that gives dial up service and, even within most companies (kind of like Fed Ex ground and Fed Ex air) there are choices as to how fast you want your Internet to be.

And last, since someone brought it up, I don't think Net Neutrality (though I haven't seen how the law is written) would keep a Christian ISP from blocking inappropriate content sites. Net Neutrality does not say that sites cannot be filtered out completely so long as the filter was requested/agreed to by the consumer, just that it cannot intentionally delay the information from any web site.

Last, the reason Net Neutrality has not been an issue so far is that it has been in the FCC's Broadband Policy Statement. The problem is, some Internet companies (such as Comcast) are challenging whether the FCC can legally compel them to follow a policy the FCC created. This bill is to ensure that Net Neutrality continues -- that the FCC's Broadband Policy Statement is encoded in law. So saying their hasn't been a problem is not an argument it is not needed since it has been an enforced policy that companies are seeking to have overturned.

 

[GodGunsAndGlory]

1. Standards exist for a reason.

2. Torrenting isn't illegal.

3. Where does the news story mention suspicions of malware, and/or an investigation?

1. The standard is all ISPs do the same thing and the net neutrality liars made it sound like it was forcing searches with their search engine which it was not.

2. Americas Army. The only thing I literally have seen that is considered legal to download and was put there by the developer.

3. I don't know, maybe in the 2nd paragraph?

Jeffrey Nelson, a "PR guy" from Verizon, confirmed the blockage via Twitter. "2 of 4Chan affiliates were staging for attacks," Nelson wrote, adding that the attacks had stopped. "They're green-lighted for tonight's network update."

 

[pgp_protector]

1. The standard is all ISPs do the same thing and the net neutrality liars made it sound like it was forcing searches with their search engine which it was not.

2. Americas Army. The only thing I literally have seen that is considered legal to download and was put there by the developer.

3. I don't know, maybe in the 2nd paragraph?

And I though I liked Microsoft.
Ever hear of LINUX ISOs?
Open Office ?
or 1000s of other Open Source Software that is distributed via Torrents?