Net neutrality

NSA

Brotherhood
Admin
Mar 13, 2011
24,844
306
83
Southern California
www.fighting118th.com
#41
I work for an ISP, not one of the big boys, but big enough in the LA area.

There are so many ??? right now about what the government WILL and WONT do that it's impossible for anyone, on either side, to make a sound case.

Basically they wanted to pass this in case some companies wanted to do some bad things, but by passing it, the government has the power to do some worse things.

Would ALL the ISP's collude to choke everything to death? I doubt it. Technology exists now for smaller companies to jump in when the "big boys" are being anti-consumer, basically the entire reason my company exists.

AT&T taking their sweet time to roll out real broadband speed? Switch. Comcast being Comcast? Switch. Sure, some people are stuck with one or two bad options depending on where you live, but that is typically entirely your local city/municipalities (Government) fault for giving company A or company B some big exclusive deal to the area.

Obviously, it's not all bad. According to them it will "ban blocking, ban throttling, and ban paid-prioritization fast lanes". Which is fine I guess, but it does not block the ISP from allotting you said amount of data and then just charging you extra to use more or turn you off, depending on your billing situation.

And honestly, I don't know why people are all up in arms over "paid-prioritization fast lanes". It's a good feature, and it helps almost everyone involved. For example, our Data Center in Downtown LA is the same Data Center used by Google (one of many obviously) and Netflix. We have a plan in place where any data coming/going from our customers to Google/Netflix can go directly from our servers to theirs and vice versa, without needing to go out to the internet proper. It's literally a cross-connect from our equipment to theirs. This cuts down HUGELY on latency and other internet issues that can come from dealing with multiple data hand-offs. Youtube and Netflix are extra snappy, but not at the expense of Hulu or Amazon Prime.. or whatever. Just because one service is made better does not make the other services worse, unless you're the type of "everything must be made equal.. or else!" type of people.

Again, the cutesy name they put on this sounds great, and the few bullet points they made available sound good.. but my biggest worry:

Thursday's vote comes after Commissioners Michael O'Rielly and Ajut Pai asked that the FCC "immediately release the 332-page Internet regulation plan publicly and allow the American people a reasonable period of not less than 30 days to carefully study it."

That request was denied;
Yeah, thanks. Lets vote something into power that we're not letting ANYONE read.

:thumbsup:
 

K-Tiger

All solutions are final.
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
30,989
146
63
#42
Google got to read it, hell, they helped write it. The government ruins everything it touches, and any politician or bureaucrat that says "we need to pass it before you can read it" ought to spend the rest of their lives digging sewage ditches in Angola.
 

nacho

"Big Guns"
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,390
198
63
On the river...
www.teletraanone.com
#44
No question that the government can screw up anything. But the idea that an ISP, due to ownership of the "pipe" can have any control over the data packets I request is a major problem.

I have no issue with netflix or google co-locating servers for efficiency. That type of optimization is better for basically everyone. But when the ISP starts getting into blocking, restricting, or prioritization of one type of traffic over another (and charging for such), then that's where the uproar comes from.

Comcast and Verizon already charge netflix huge premiums to basically "not block" their traffic. That cost goes straight into the price of the service. Consumers are effectively paying the ISP extra to deliver content over a connection they're already paying for. That's not a "maybe" or "just in case" future scenario the FCC is aiming at. That's happening today. And if anyone thinks Comcast et al won't push the limits of that gate-keeper position to squeeze every red cent out of content providers and consumers, then they clearly haven't been paying attention.
 

pcsguy88

Number 2
Staff member
Mar 14, 2011
10,378
283
83
KC
www.fighting118th.com
#54
Looks like we are going to have to censor Eddie moving forward. :pirate:


The UK government is taking a hard line when it comes to online safety, moving to establish what it says is the world's first independent regulator to keep social media companies in check.

Companies that fail to live up to requirements will face huge fines, and senior directors who are proven to have been negligent will be held personally liable. They may also find access to their sites blocked.

The regulator will be tasked with ensuring social media companies are tackling a range of online problems, including:

  • Inciting violence and spreading violent content (including terrorist content)
  • Encouraging self-harm or suicide
  • The spread of disinformation and fake news
  • Cyberbullying
  • Children accessing inappropriate material
  • Child exploitation and abuse content
As well as applying to the major social networks, such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, the requirements will also have to be met by file-hosting sites, online forums, messaging services and search engines.
Can we ban the entirety of the Queen's subjects to avoid this?
 

nacho

"Big Guns"
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,390
198
63
On the river...
www.teletraanone.com
#57
They're too busy shooting themselves in the dick to visit toy forums. I mean, I'm all for Brexit. They want to control their borders, have control over their trade agreements, and generally give Europe the finger... all things I'm absolutely supportive of... but parliament is so inept and dysfunctional, it makes congress look like they're all holding hands and singing kum-bay-ya.

The real problem with this level of censorship is that someone has to decide what qualifies as "misinformation"... and those things are determined by people who have opinions. Which means it's subject to political whims, corruption, and all the same bullshit that we have with facebook now. The libs will censor everything they don't like in the name of "misinformation", and things will only get shittier.
 
Likes: G.I.*EDDIE

NSA

Brotherhood
Admin
Mar 13, 2011
24,844
306
83
Southern California
www.fighting118th.com
#59
I would guess they theoretically could send us a bill or fine or something.. but as we're not based in the EU or owned by anyone in the EU I assume you could tell them to sod off? Not entirely sure though.

Could just try a "good faith" ban of Europe.. but I imagine that would be hard to get all their IP blocks, and VPN's would let you get around it pretty easily.

I guess we could put something in the terms saying "if you're an EU citizen please don't register".