Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
kronk wrote: My sister's name, a bit more rare, had 9 full pages from the same address:
I am in favor of strong net neutrality under Title II of the Telecommunications Act.
Sincerely, Kronk's Sister
Kronk's Sister isn't a rare name at all. I know four people with that name. Five if we include the one with the spelling variation Kronk's Syster.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Easy E wrote: Our village bicycle is called Kronk's Sister!
"Those blast marks a re far too accurate for Tusken Raiders... they must be Storm Troopers."
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
After a brief security evacuation, U.S. telecom regulators have voted to repeal so-called net neutrality rules, which restrict the power of Internet service providers to influence loading speeds for specific websites or apps.
Following weeks of heated controversy and protests, the Republican majority of the Federal Communications Commission voted along party lines on Thursday to loosen Obama-era regulations for Internet providers.
The rules, put in place in 2015, banned cable and telecom companies from blocking or slowing down any websites or apps. They also prohibited broadband providers from striking special deals that would give some websites or apps "priority" over others.
The FCC's dramatic course reversal in favor of Internet service providers has propelled the once-wonky issue of net neutrality into the mainstream, turning it into an increasingly political matter. Advocacy groups are now expected to press Congress to stop the FCC's vote from taking effect under the Congressional Review Act.
Before the FCC took a vote, the meeting room was briefly evacuated over a security threat, which has not been officially explained. Live-streams from inside the empty rooms showed security guards with what appeared to be bomb-sniffing dogs.
In undoing the regulations, the FCC has reasserted one of the net neutrality requirements: that Internet providers — such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T — have to disclose to their users what exactly they do to web traffic. This will essentially shift all enforcement to the Federal Trade Commission, which polices violations rather than pre-empts them through regulations.
Broadband companies have been saying that they do not intend to block, slow down or prioritize any web traffic as a result of this repeal, arguing that it's not in their interest to aggravate their users by messing with their Internet traffic.
Net neutrality activists, however, have been rallying widespread protests against the vote, saying the repeal will empower broadband companies to act as gatekeepers of the Internet, for example allowing them to prioritize their own video streaming services.
Consumer interest groups have told NPR that are also planning to pursue a lawsuit challenging Thursday's FCC decision, which would be the fourth related court case in a decade. (An appeal of the 2015 rules by AT&T, CenturyLink and a telecom trade group is pending at the Supreme Court.)
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who voted against the rules in 2015, has portrayed the Obama-era regulations — which put broadband providers under the strictest-ever FCC oversight — as government "micromanaging the Internet." He and broadband companies have argued that the regulations have stifled innovation and investment in broadband networks.
"What is responsible for the phenomenal development of the Internet? Certainly wasn't heavy-handed government regulation," Pai said on Thursday, adding his oft-repeated line that "there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015, we were not living in some digital dystopia. ... It is time for us to bring faster, better and cheaper Internet access to all Americans."
Large tech companies — such as Netflix, Google and Facebook — have long spoken in support of strict net neutrality rules. However, as they've grown in size, their advocacy has been more muted, putting on the forefront smaller competitors like Etsy and Vimeo, which argue that startups stand to lose the most on an Internet that allows for special "priority" traffic deals.
"I have heard from innovators, worried that we are standing up a 'mother-may-I' regime, where the broadband provider becomes arbiter of acceptable online business models," Democratic FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said in a blistering dissent on Thursday. She added: "When the current 2015 net neutrality rules are laid to waste, we may be left with no single authority with the power to protect consumers."
The Internet Association, which represents dozens of tech companies, in a statement called Pai's repeal "a departure from more than a decade of broad, bipartisan consensus on the rules governing the internet" and amounted to "relying" on Internet providers "to live to their own 'promises.' "
Republican FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly called the concerns of potential net neutrality violations "guilt by imagination" and "baseless fear-mongering." He said: "I'm simply not persuaded that heavy-handed rules are needed to protect from hypothetical harm."
There was a bomb threat called in during the middle of the meeting today. Honest to god I believe ajit will get attacked at some point and possibly killed, especially after the bomb threat
I just have to wonder in what world it's a good idea to give a semi-Monopoly so much power. I mean, even if you believe in a neo-liberal approach this is the type example of when regulation is required to avoid all the drawbacks of a monopoly.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out over there, certainly people are pretty passionate about it.
For someone like me who isn't overly bothered about high traffic websites like TwitchTV or Imgur, I can see some merit in the idea that I could reduce my internet bill in exchange for limited access to certain websites that I hardly use.
However, I can certainly see the potential for abuse in examples brought up by others such as restricting access to particular news sites or online shops to try to control people's political views or spending habits.
For someone like me who isn't overly bothered about high traffic websites like TwitchTV or Imgur, I can see some merit in the idea that I could reduce my internet bill in exchange for limited access to certain websites that I hardly use.
.
Correction. Your bill goes up a little bit. Other people have to pay extra to access those websites.
In China and North Korea, the government will control what you are allowed to see.
Now, in the USA, the same power has been given to ISPs.
It's oppression via capitalism, and therefore, is something to make America great, apparently.
Ready for a Netflix stock nose dive?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/14 19:13:53
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Kroem wrote: It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out over there, certainly people are pretty passionate about it.
For someone like me who isn't overly bothered about high traffic websites like TwitchTV or Imgur, I can see some merit in the idea that I could reduce my internet bill in exchange for limited access to certain websites that I hardly use.
Your bill almost certainly would not go down, and stuff like imgur or twitch would likely be bundled onto other stuff you do visit, like YouTube or Netlfix for instance.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I just have to wonder in what world it's a good idea to give a semi-Monopoly so much power. I mean, even if you believe in a neo-liberal approach this is the type example of when regulation is required to avoid all the drawbacks of a monopoly.
The entire point is to give large companies more power.
USA - you had a good run, and you helped Britain out in a tight spot in the 1940s, so I'll forever be grateful, but I'll see you in the history books...
Feth me with a fishfork. I mean, did I dream Trump or Brexit? You have an entire class of people who are angry, feel disenfranchised, are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, and feel globalization has cheated them, and the solution is to cut their internet access unless they pay more, and allow big companies to gatekeep what is deemed acceptable to read or watch?
For God's sake...
I can only laugh at the absurdity of this...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
USA - you had a good run, and you helped Britain out in a tight spot in the 1940s, so I'll forever be grateful, but I'll see you in the history books...
Feth me with a fishfork. I mean, did I dream Trump or Brexit? You have an entire class of people who are angry, feel disenfranchised, are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, and feel globalization has cheated them, and the solution is to cut their internet access unless they pay more, and allow big companies to gatekeep what is deemed acceptable to read or watch?
For God's sake...
I can only laugh at the absurdity of this...
Not only this, but it limits information.
It limits the ability to form groups that might be opposed/in favor of certain actions being taken by individuals/companies/governments. People will organize, they always have, it's just the strength of the message will take longer to spread.
[MOD EDIT - Please do not post sentiments like that - find a different way to express your frustrations - Alpharius]I won't shed a single tear and you can finger wag at me all you want over how awful that is but feth it. These people take and take and take.
It would be a nice change of pace tuning into the news and learning there was one less Ajit or Skrelley in the world instead of a bus of school kids.
feth this country.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 20:08:30
USA - you had a good run, and you helped Britain out in a tight spot in the 1940s, so I'll forever be grateful, but I'll see you in the history books...
Feth me with a fishfork. I mean, did I dream Trump or Brexit? You have an entire class of people who are angry, feel disenfranchised, are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, and feel globalization has cheated them, and the solution is to cut their internet access unless they pay more, and allow big companies to gatekeep what is deemed acceptable to read or watch?
For God's sake...
I can only laugh at the absurdity of this...
This whole post deserves a LOLWUT?!?
I mean, I suppose you were joking, but...?
Anyway, here's to hoping that the fight continues and Net Neutrality is restored - soon.
Not sure it's been brought up here, but other people have said "The Internet was fine before the 2015 Net Neutrality ruling, so it should be fine now that that's dead!" Just in case you run into someone who argues that, here's a list of things before the 2015 ruling that WERE NOT fine:
2005 – North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked VoIP service Vonage.
2005 – Comcast blocked or severely delayed traffic using the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol. (The company even had the guts to deny this for months until evidence was presented by the Associated Press.)
2007 – AT&T censored Pearl Jam because lead singer criticized President Bush.
2007 to 2009 – AT&T forced Apple to block Skype because it didn’t like the competition. At the time, the carrier had exclusive rights to sell the iPhone and even then the net neutrality advocates were pushing the government to protect online consumers, over 5 years before these rules were actually passed.
2009 – Google Voice app faced similar issues from ISPs, including AT&T on iPhone.
2010 – Windstream Communications, a DSL provider, started hijacking search results made using Google toolbar. It consistently redirected users to Windstream’s own search engine and results.
2011 – MetroPCS, one of the top-five wireless carriers at the time, announced plans to block streaming services over its 4G network from everyone except YouTube.
2011 to 2013 – AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon blocked Google Wallet in favor of Isis, a mobile payment system in which all three had shares. Verizon even asked Google to not include its payment app in its Nexus devices.2012 – AT&T blocked FaceTime; again because the company didn’t like the competition.
2012 – Verizon started blocking people from using tethering apps on their phones that enabled consumers to avoid the company’s $20 tethering fee.
2014 – AT&T announced a new “sponsored data” scheme, offering content creators a way to buy their way around the data caps that AT&T imposes on its subscribers.
2014 – Netflix started paying Verizon and Comcast to “improve streaming service for consumers.”
2014 – T-Mobile was accused of using data caps to manipulate online competition.
Kroem wrote: It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out over there, certainly people are pretty passionate about it.
For someone like me who isn't overly bothered about high traffic websites like TwitchTV or Imgur, I can see some merit in the idea that I could reduce my internet bill in exchange for limited access to certain websites that I hardly use.
Your bill almost certainly would not go down, and stuff like imgur or twitch would likely be bundled onto other stuff you do visit, like YouTube or Netlfix for instance.
Is that confirmed? Why would anyone agree to pay more for less of a service?
I struggle to believe that demand for internet is so inelastic with respect to price that this wouldn't loose them custom, especially with competition from the high speed internet you can get on mobile phones now.
Yea you are right, they would have to be flexible as everyone has different 'top sites'. If an ISP hit the market with a package say half the price of my current internet, but I could only choose 2 of the top 10 sites to have unlimited access to; I think that could be a successful product in the budget end of the market.
Mega corporation lowering a price?
I'd like a pony if we're just wishing for stuff. They spent hundreds of millions buying politicians, there's gotta be a return on that investment. You'll pay the same price and receive less and less for it each year now. Up until today, you paid about the same price and received more each year.
USA - you had a good run, and you helped Britain out in a tight spot in the 1940s, so I'll forever be grateful, but I'll see you in the history books...
Feth me with a fishfork. I mean, did I dream Trump or Brexit? You have an entire class of people who are angry, feel disenfranchised, are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, and feel globalization has cheated them, and the solution is to cut their internet access unless they pay more, and allow big companies to gatekeep what is deemed acceptable to read or watch?
For God's sake...
I can only laugh at the absurdity of this...
This whole post deserves a LOLWUT?!?
I mean, I suppose you were joking, but...?
Anyway, here's to hoping that the fight continues and Net Neutrality is restored - soon.
You may not believe this, but I respect the Mods, appreciate the hard work and time they give dakka, thus making it as a beacon of polite debate on the net, and I'm fully aware that the US politics thread was a major headache for you guys.
I'll try very hard not to stray into that.
None the less, we all know that there are millions of people in the USA who support and voted for you know who. A lot of these people are convinced that there is a Silicon vallley/Liberal elite conspiracy against them.
Many of these people have strong views on things like same sex marriage, gun control etc etc
And now we have this potential situation of big companies being gatekeepers on what can and can't be said or watched.
Do you really think these supporters of you know who are going to say: they won, that's a wrap lads, let's go home?
Or is it more likely more tension and divisions will spring up? And the conditions that got you know who elected, are likely to get worse, and not go away?
USA - you had a good run, and you helped Britain out in a tight spot in the 1940s, so I'll forever be grateful, but I'll see you in the history books...
Feth me with a fishfork. I mean, did I dream Trump or Brexit? You have an entire class of people who are angry, feel disenfranchised, are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, and feel globalization has cheated them, and the solution is to cut their internet access unless they pay more, and allow big companies to gatekeep what is deemed acceptable to read or watch?
For God's sake...
I can only laugh at the absurdity of this...
Not only this, but it limits information.
It limits the ability to form groups that might be opposed/in favor of certain actions being taken by individuals/companies/governments. People will organize, they always have, it's just the strength of the message will take longer to spread.
From an economic viewpoin, it's madness. From a moral viewpoint. Madness. From a political viewpoint, it's the kind of thing that leads to another American Revolution.
After everything that America went through in the past with regard to monopolies, and the ecomomic damage it caused, is the USA to learn that hard lesson again that monopolies are bad?
What did Marx say about history repeating itself?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 21:06:33
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Kroem wrote: Why would anyone agree to pay more for less of a service?
Because "freedom."
I struggle to believe that demand for internet is so inelastic with respect to price that this wouldn't loose them custom, especially with competition from the high speed internet you can get on mobile phones now.
What do they care if they lose customers to mobile networks when they also own the mobile networks?
I think that could be a successful product in the budget end of the market.
I think it's ultimately naive. ISP companies have seen how much they rake in from the way mobile data is structured, and it's only a matter of time till internet services are restructured to reflect that. I don't think anyone's bills go down in this long term. Everyone will pay more, and everyone will get less. And that's just the consumer side. Market side Comcast can now throttle Netflix because it they own significant stock in Hulu, and why wouldn't they want to make a deal with Hulu's new majority owner (Disney) for preferred service that cuts Netflix out of the network?
Kroem wrote: It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out over there, certainly people are pretty passionate about it.
For someone like me who isn't overly bothered about high traffic websites like TwitchTV or Imgur, I can see some merit in the idea that I could reduce my internet bill in exchange for limited access to certain websites that I hardly use.
Your bill almost certainly would not go down, and stuff like imgur or twitch would likely be bundled onto other stuff you do visit, like YouTube or Netlfix for instance.
Is that confirmed? Why would anyone agree to pay more for less of a service?
I struggle to believe that demand for internet is so inelastic with respect to price that this wouldn't loose them custom, especially with competition from the high speed internet you can get on mobile phones now.
Yea you are right, they would have to be flexible as everyone has different 'top sites'. If an ISP hit the market with a package say half the price of my current internet, but I could only choose 2 of the top 10 sites to have unlimited access to; I think that could be a successful product in the budget end of the market.
nothing is confirmed or anything, nothing is likely to change for months or years as this is dragged through the courts. That said, looking at models in other places, like Portugal, they tend to lump like services with like, as opposed to discriminating site by site, and after you buy all the services you regularly use youre not actually cutting anything you dont.
In the US, the whole issue is that there just isnt anyone else to go to in most places. Cell providers will murder you on bandwidth charges, while cable providers typically have a monopoly or only one, typically dramatically inferior, competitor. Given the increasingly interconnected natue of life and doing everything online, demand is pretty inelastic, much like gasoline and driving, there often just isnt a better choice.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Yeah I don't think you're gonna suddenly have Dakka stop working. It will probably be more service or network based, like add the netflix elite package for $5 on top of your netflix fee, bundle in Hulu on top of their fee for just $4 more. Stupid stuff like that.
But I think think the biggest reason is that cable TV is slowly dying and they know it. With smart TVs becoming the norm, and consoles having streaming apps, and roku and all that stuff, Comcast and other providers know they can only sell you TV for so many more years.. Since they know they will make less money off of TV and the internet is here to stay, they wanna make more money off that. Not defending them, but I think that's the root of the issue. The more money they can get out of us the better for them. And we can't vote with our wallets, cuz in most cases you only have 1 cable company to deal with or your SOL.
