OT: Will non net-neutrality kill the internet?

[Rod Pemberton]

Today, the FCC backed off on requiring net-neutrality.

Not having net-neutrality means that cable and telephone providers can
restrict, block, or censor *ANY* content of their choosing.

IMO, this is a huge mistake for a country that cherishes freedom and
privacy. No one can imagine having a government, like China, that can
suppress any or all of their free desires on the Internet. Yet, that's
exactly what the FCC has now allowed corporate America to do to us. It's
just transmission of blocks of data. Shouldn't every block of transmitted
data be priced the same? Why should the content of the blocks or quantity
of blocks matter? If there is sufficient bandwidth and adequate timeliness
in transmission of data, there shouldn't be any pricing differences. In the
US, bandwidth is a commodity with a near infinite surplus. Why do they get
to impose tiered pricing on something of massive surplus? This is nothing
more than legalized extortion.

Not having net-neutrality means that cable and telephone providers can
restrict, block, or censor *ANY* content of their choosing.

If it conflicts with their mores, blocked.
If it passes laws about their business, blocked.
If it consumes too much bandwidth, blocked.
If it competes with their business, blocked.
It it doesn't generate revenue for them, blocked.
If it doesn't use their for pay services, blocked.
If it won't pay more for transmission of this or that data, blocked.

What's included in that?

Military, US government, state governments, sex, religion, politics, social
issues, money, weapons, filesharing, streaming movies, internet telephone,
internet radio, news, gaming, forums, nntp, email, ftp, webpages,
anything... etc.

Not having net-neutrality means that cable and telephone providers can
restrict, block, or censor *ANY* content of their choosing.

Can you imagine trying to make an internet phone call, or listening to
internet radio, or watching a streamed movie, and having your data slowed?
Can you imagine trying to get tax forms and not being able to connect to the
IRS because your ISP or broadband provider blocked the government website
for too much traffic?
Can you imagine trying to get health information and not being allowed to
because the words triggered a mores filter?
Can you imagine not being able to share files, or blog, or use forums?
Can you imagine having to pay more for your blocks of data when others get
to pay less for the their blocks?

You name it and your broadband or ISP provider can now legally block, slow,
or restrict it with or without reason. And, I thought Prince was irrational
when he stated: "The Internet's completely over"... If net-neutrality fails
in America, the Internet's completely over.

Not having net-neutrality means that cable and telephone providers can
restrict, block, or censor *ANY* content of their choosing.


Rod Pemberton

 

[Ian Collins]

Today, the FCC backed off on requiring net-neutrality.

The world, and the Internet extends beyond the borders of the USA.

 

[John Kelly]

The world, and the Internet extends beyond the borders of the USA.

Yeah but we got Trident nukes all over. ;-)

 

[s_dubrovich]

Today, the FCC backed off on requiring net-neutrality.

The FCC has been dirty since the Bush year's. But I thought they lost
a supreme court court case on dictating 'net neutrality'. And I
thought the term meant 'equal access' as opposed to 'tiered access'
according to pricing levels.

Not having net-neutrality means that cable and telephone providers can
restrict, block, or censor *ANY* content of their choosing.

Does it?

IMO, this is a huge mistake for a country that cherishes freedom and
privacy.  No one can imagine having a government, like China, that can
suppress any or all of their free desires on the Internet.  Yet, that's
exactly what the FCC has now allowed corporate America to do to us.  It's

I thought the privatizing would slow under this new administration,
not so, the mega corps own congress and any administration seated.

just transmission of blocks of data.  Shouldn't every block of transmitted
data be priced the same?  Why should the content of the blocks or quantity
of blocks matter?  If there is sufficient bandwidth and adequate timeliness
in transmission of data, there shouldn't be any pricing differences.  In the
US, bandwidth is a commodity with a near infinite surplus.  Why do they get
to impose tiered pricing on something of massive surplus?  This is nothing
more than legalized extortion.

They can impose their way because they can, and there's a calculated
profit in doing so.

Not having net-neutrality means that cable and telephone providers can
restrict, block, or censor *ANY* content of their choosing.

If it conflicts with their mores, blocked.
If it passes laws about their business, blocked.
If it consumes too much bandwidth, blocked.
If it competes with their business, blocked.
It it doesn't generate revenue for them, blocked.
If it doesn't use their for pay services, blocked.
If it won't pay more for transmission of this or that data, blocked.

What's included in that?

Military, US government, state governments, sex, religion, politics, social
issues, money, weapons, filesharing, streaming movies, internet telephone,
internet radio, news, gaming, forums, nntp, email, ftp, webpages,
anything...  etc.

Not having net-neutrality means that cable and telephone providers can
restrict, block, or censor *ANY* content of their choosing.

Can you imagine trying to make an internet phone call, or listening to
internet radio, or watching a streamed movie, and having your data slowed?

Yes. (happened to my dad when his isp was an early adopter, then they
backed off, I wonder if his was a test market. The bad thing is if
you saturated your bandwidth, there was no way to tell where that
point was. Late day mega software updates would stall to failure.
This was about the time 'update managers' came into vogue.)

Can you imagine trying to get tax forms and not being able to connect to the
IRS because your ISP or broadband provider blocked the government website
for too much traffic?
Can you imagine trying to get health information and not being allowed to
because the words triggered a mores filter?

I hear google search is blind to some religious sites. hmm.

Can you imagine not being able to share files, or blog, or use forums?

Verizon and usenet?

Can you imagine having to pay more for your blocks of data when others get
to pay less for the their blocks?

Does this happen with ecommerce depending on net location? (meaning
like zip code zone?)

You name it and your broadband or ISP provider can now legally block, slow,
or restrict it with or without reason.  And, I thought Prince was irrational
when he stated: "The Internet's completely over"...  If net-neutrality fails
in America, the Internet's completely over.

The Constitution is completely over. The founding fathers made a
brilliant gambit against tyranny in the separation of powers, figuring
greed and self-interest would hamstring the pooling of power into the
hands of the few. What they didn't figure on is collusion thru quid
pro quo of privatizing profits while 'publictizing' risks.

Not having net-neutrality means that cable and telephone providers can
restrict, block, or censor *ANY* content of their choosing.

They're not likely to absolutely block, but charge more for 'freer'
access!

Is it so much different than cable companies surcharging for HD
broadcasts? -or charging for monthly access yet still subjecting you
to 20mins of commercials per viewing hour?

Oh! Where art thou redress!

Steve

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

The world, and the Internet extends beyond the borders of the USA.

In other countries, things are more or less the same.

In Russia, there are laws on "extremism", which are widely applied to the Internet. "Extremism" means, actually, most political activity from being a skinhead up to just active dislike to the current governement. Left-wing Trotzki-style red movements are also considered "extremistic". Fundamental Islam is too.

 

[Nick Keighley]

Today, the FCC backed off on requiring net-neutrality.

always seemed a bit strange

Not having net-neutrality means that cable and telephone providers can
restrict, block, or censor *ANY* content of their choosing.

no. They *may* do this but then again they may not.

IMO, this is a huge mistake for a country that cherishes freedom and
privacy.  No one can imagine having a government, like China, that can
suppress any or all of their free desires on the Internet.

since such goveernments exist why is it hard to imagine them?

 Yet, that's
exactly what the FCC has now allowed corporate America to do to us.

don't talk nonsense

 It's
just transmission of blocks of data.  Shouldn't every block of transmitted
data be priced the same?
why?


 Why should the content of the blocks or quantity
of blocks matter?

perhaps you should get a discount for quantity!

 If there is sufficient bandwidth and adequate timeliness
in transmission of data, there shouldn't be any pricing differences.  In the
US, bandwidth is a commodity with a near infinite surplus.  

nonsense. How can something be nearly infinite? Apparently fibres are
starting to fill up.

Why do they get
to impose tiered pricing on something of massive surplus?  This is nothing
more than legalized extortion.

if there really is a massive surplus any attempt to hike prices will
be undercut by other suppliers. Trust capitalism!

<snip hysteria>

 

[John Kelly]

Trust capitalism!

I trust it to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

 

[BGB / cr88192]

The world, and the Internet extends beyond the borders of the USA.

<--
In other countries, things are more or less the same.

In Russia, there are laws on "extremism", which are widely applied to the
Internet. "Extremism" means, actually, most political activity from being a
skinhead up to just active dislike to the current governement. Left-wing
Trotzki-style red movements are also considered "extremistic". Fundamental
Islam is too.
-->

yeah, in the US, one is branded as "extremist" if one holds views just
rightward of "new ager believing in progressive ideology" (even an agnostic
is labeled as some "fundie" or "religious extremist" if they openly disagree
with these sorts of "ideals").


like, if one mentions the idea that people should refrain from becomming
physically involved until after marriage, or that the Bible says
not-so-positive things about gays (and that one can't endorse this lifestyle
and claim to be living a Christian life according to biblical definitions,
....), or that divorce is only really allowed (biblically) if one or another
party has been unfaithful (in which case, one is no longer under any
obligation to stay with the other person), and suddenly one is accused of
being a fundie and people riot about "offensive speech" and so on...

well, hell, maybe this is "extremism", but then again, maybe some of these
people can go to some Muslim countries and see how well their "ideals" hold
up...

it is sad though, I am sometimes the supposed fundie and zealot, yet I am
generally not the one becomming offended (my "ideals" are not so fragile as
to be broken simply by words and opinions, so there is no reason to take
offense). like, if ones' ground is solid, what reason is there to lash out
at those who may hold a different opinion?...

I don't even advocate taking any particular action against anyone (even if
someones' actions are immoral, there is no real obligation to try to stop
them from doing so under my understanding, since if punishment is coming to
them, it will come regardless).

I just say, the text says what the text says. I didn't make these rules, but
they are written there none the less.


and, after posting this, I can just see how long it is until someone throws
a fit over me even having said this much...

this would then just serve as evidence of the point (assuming they even read
this far before throwing said fit, one can be surprised if they even read a
post to the end or respond to statements in context half the time...).

but, oh well, whatever...

 

[Nick Keighley]

yeah, in the US, one is branded as "extremist" if one holds views just
rightward of "new ager believing in progressive ideology" (even an agnostic
is labeled as some "fundie" or "religious extremist" if they openly disagree
with these sorts of "ideals").

like, if one mentions the idea that people should refrain from becomming
physically involved until after marriage, or that the Bible says
not-so-positive things about gays (and that one can't endorse this lifestyle
and claim to be living a Christian life according to biblical definitions,
...), or that divorce is only really allowed (biblically) if one or another
party has been unfaithful (in which case, one is no longer under any
obligation to stay with the other person), and suddenly one is accused of
being a fundie and people riot about "offensive speech" and so on...

And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof;
he is unclean unto you.

And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof;
he is unclean unto you.

And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he
cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch;
they are unclean to you.
....

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers,
of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in
the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
....

Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived
seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days;
according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be
unclean.

And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

well, hell, maybe this is "extremism", but then again, maybe some of these
people can go to some Muslim countries and see how well their "ideals" hold
up...

??

the cure is to move to another country with religious extremists? How
does that work?

it is sad though, I am sometimes the supposed fundie and zealot, yet I am
generally not the one becomming offended (my "ideals" are not so fragile as
to be broken simply by words and opinions, so there is no reason to take
offense). like, if ones' ground is solid, what reason is there to lash out
at those who may hold a different opinion?...

I don't even advocate taking any particular action against anyone (even if
someones' actions are immoral, there is no real obligation to try to stop
them from doing so under my understanding, since if punishment is coming to
them, it will come regardless).

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them
have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death;
their blood shall be upon them.

(to be fair, there is a long list of other offences that also carry
the death penalty)

 

[Chris H]

Yeah but we got Trident nukes all over. ;-)

As the Taliban found out when they got thrashed by the US in 2001....

 

[Uno]

Trust capitalism!

<snip hysteria>

Gosh, Nick, what could go wrong with such sage advice?

You're a serious douchebag and net neutrality is something the rest of
us fight for.

 

[BGB / cr88192]

And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof;
he is unclean unto you.

And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof;
he is unclean unto you.

And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he
cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch;
they are unclean to you.
...

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers,
of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in
the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
...

Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived
seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days;
according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be
unclean.

And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

these are part of the OT (Old Testament) law, which was specifically revoked
in the NT (New Testament).

??

the cure is to move to another country with religious extremists? How
does that work?

well, if a bunch of these complaining liberal types go to a Muslim country,
they can see just how "extreme" and "opressive" the typical US Christian
is...

which is to say, not much.
in the US, maybe someone will say some seemingly disagreeable words.
they go there, and try this same sort of stuff, and they may be liable to
end up decapitated with a hacksaw or similar.

these are not at all the same thing...

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them
have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death;
their blood shall be upon them.

(to be fair, there is a long list of other offences that also carry
the death penalty)

yes, this is also OT law.

technically, these rules were changed in the NT, and so people are no longer
obligated to enforce the morals of others. however, for those who continue
on in immoral ways, meanwhile them knowing better, ..., punishment does
await them, so either way the activity is not acceptable.

"He who is vile, let him be vile", ...


it would be complicated to explain (there are large piles of doctrine in the
way), but the basic idea is that with the death of Jesus and a few other
things, much of the OT law became no longer binding.

the rules one is bound by are then understood to be those things which were
restated in the NT.
FWIW, the NT rules are a lot softer than the OT laws in these regards.


some rules are revoked more explicitly, such as the condemnation of eating
certain kinds of animal, of requiring circumcision, ...

so, yeah, maybe ones' ancestors are bound by certain rules, but one
themselves is not.

 

[John Kelly]

As the Taliban found out when they got thrashed by the US in 2001....

I meant the nuclear doomsday missles.

 

[Tim Streater]

I meant the nuclear doomsday missles.

What's a missle? Type of thrush, or toe, possibly?

 

[BGB / cr88192]

I meant the nuclear doomsday missles.

AFAIK, most US nukes are low-yeild (kiloton range), rather than the
many-megaton or more nukes which would be needed to do a lot of collateral
damage.

now, maybe one of these would do some damage within an urban target, but
most military targets/... are not in urban environments, hence little real
threat to the general populus.

rural people are generally safe as well, since no one is likely to bother
trying to blow up all of the rural areas (even if someone does want to
target the civilians, they are likely to target cities, hence only the urban
populus is in much danger...).

 

[James]

I trust it to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

How do you account for the poor that became rich? BTW, how much do you have
to make a year to be defined as rich?

 

[James]

AFAIK, most US nukes are low-yeild (kiloton range), rather than the
many-megaton or more nukes which would be needed to do a lot of collateral
damage.

now, maybe one of these would do some damage within an urban target, but
most military targets/... are not in urban environments, hence little real
threat to the general populus.

[...]

Well, I think that a Trident 2 can carry up to 12 MIRV warheads. I think a
submarine can carry around 24 of those bastards. So, that's potentially 288
MIRV warheads per-sub.

So, I think there would be hardcore damage to an urban area if a sub fired
off one or two of those suckers and directed all the MIRV's at the same
target... Basically carpet bomb the target with nukes...

 

[Walter Banks]

AFAIK, most US nukes are low-yeild (kiloton range), rather than the
many-megaton or more nukes which would be needed to do a lot of collateral
damage.

Hiroshima was 14 Ktons or so killed 140,000 people. Dense
population for sure.

It finally came home to me just what happened in Hiroshima when
I saw the torn in half fish plates holding a bridge to its footings
by the pressure wave that first blew the water out of the river and
then blew the bridge upwards with the reflected shock wave from the
mud bottom.

Walter..

 

[BGB / cr88192]

Hiroshima was 14 Ktons or so killed 140,000 people. Dense
population for sure.

It finally came home to me just what happened in Hiroshima when
I saw the torn in half fish plates holding a bridge to its footings
by the pressure wave that first blew the water out of the river and
then blew the bridge upwards with the reflected shock wave from the
mud bottom.

yes, but although it did some damage, the effected area was not, itself, all
that large.
most of the deaths were likely because, yes, it was an urban target.

set off a small nuke in the middle of NYC or LA, and the death count would
likely be a bit higher...

however, to take out a larger city entirely, say, Las Angeles or Las Vegas
or Phoenix or ...
one would likely start having to lay down the things in large numbers.

to effectively pull off a "doomsday" scenario (AKA: damn near everyone
dead), well, that would take a lot of nukes, either that, or bombs large
enough to take out an entire large city at a time (say, with a 10-20 or more
mile blast radius), and having lots of them for all the cities, or having
enough small bombs to effectively cover pretty much the entirety of dense
and moderate population areas.

granted, yes, by taking out many of the major cities, one could throw a
country into anarchy (and allow military takeover by another country), but
this is not quite the same as a near-anihilation of the populus.

 

[John Kelly]

granted, yes, by taking out many of the major cities, one could throw a
country into anarchy (and allow military takeover by another country), but
this is not quite the same as a near-anihilation of the populus.

Without electricity, our entire technologic infrastructure is useless.
Destroy the power grids, and it's game over for modern civilization.