+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Net Neutrality

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,193

    Default Net Neutrality

    https://www.battleforthenet.com/

    What are the catacombs thoughts on this?

    Is it as severe as the website makes it sound?

    From what I understand it does seem like this would be an opportunity for these major cable companies to dictate what information you have reasonable access to.
    "Nah man, a Paladin has to play fair and by the rules. Do you really see Silly not attacking a weakened opponent? Or rather, not exploiting a weakness to take an enemy down? He'd totally do that. It's the law of the jungle with Silly, even if he does have faith. I think he's principled, just not merciful." - Zavon

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Saratoga, NY
    Posts
    912

    Default Re: Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Sillywilly View Post
    https://www.battleforthenet.com/

    What are the catacombs thoughts on this?

    Is it as severe as the website makes it sound?

    From what I understand it does seem like this would be an opportunity for these major cable companies to dictate what information you have reasonable access to.
    It is fundamentally bad. People will spew stuff about 'killing competition' or 'we shouldn't be regulating business even more, let the market speak' bullshit, but the reality is that the majority of our internet infrastructure was built on government contracts/subsidies, through taxpayer funds, and all regulatory bodies that were created to protect consumers(tax-payers) have been captured by the ISP lobby. A lot of this actually occurs at the local govt level with non-compete contracts and deals between companies to create territorial 'monopolies'.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Net Neutrality

    Soros is heavily pushing for net neutrality law so that control can be centralized under the government or an international org. As a general rule on complex topics, when in doubt I tend to choose the opposite of whatever Soros wants.

    The core issue is; should the ability to censor content and choose winners and losers continue to rest with private corporations (as it currently does), or should it rest with the government.

    A few common sense laws aimed at common carriers and tech giants could accomplish what I want. The Net neutrality folks want to take it way further than is necessary so that unelected officials have complete control. No matter who wins, we lose.

    So, I do support Net Neutrality? No. Do I think things are ok the way they are now? No.

    We need basic laws to prevent carriers and companies like Google/Facebook/Twitter from controlling markets and engaging in censorship and monopolistic behavior. The answer is not to give all of that control to the government or (worse) an international unelected clique. Nor is the answer to do nothing. These companies have become too powerful and disruptive to both markets and free speech to do nothing. The movement championed by Soros and co just sets the stage for turning the internet into govt and/or UN controlled agitprop. I'd rather have what we have now if those are my 2 choices. It's an artificial choice though.

    Nobody wants a chance to pass up more power, and it's why nothing is being fixed. The whole debate has been framed as a false binary choice between government regulating all aspects of the internet or doing nothing at all. So, shit sandwich or bukkake cream pie.

    The correct choice is to pass a couple of carefully crafted laws to address the issues and otherwise leave things alone, something our incompetent corrupted legislature is incapable of.

    /edit: I realize I just stated the same thing several different ways, I'm leaving it alone though. tldr - the "Net Neutrality" movement is full of shit, and so are the corporations pushing for no action at all. The language being used by advocates when describing things is misleading, often wrong, and intentionally obtuse so that plebians can't weigh in properly.
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  4. #4

    Default Re: Net Neutrality

    -=Related=-

    https://fee.org/articles/net-neutral...free-internet/

    https://mises.org/blog/net-neutralit...tes-corruption

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey.../#46a7dd3fdc8f

    This is the Soros position -->

    https://fee.org/articles/net-neutral...-the-internet/

    Quote Originally Posted by Soros Lackey in charge of Net Neutrality initiative
    "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."
    Support net neutrality comrade, down with the bourgeois!
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  5. #5

    Default Re: Net Neutrality

    Shills and media bots are out in full force astroturfing this shit all over. Pretty sickening to watch. Their talking points don't even make sense. If all internet traffic was treated equally the internet wouldn't work at all. Routing algorithms already don't function that way for extremely good reason. Bunch of criminals trying to brainwash the goys with retarded analogies that make no fucking sense from a practical standpoint. Bandwidth and routes are constantly tweaked and retweaked to meet demand 24 hours a day.

    The actual regulations put in place by Obama don't remotely resemble the propaganda...their removal would be a good thing. The general public for the most part isn't intellectually qualified to discuss the topic of network topology or routing. All in all, pretty infuriating. People shouting "We want X!" when they can't even define "X". Power of propaganda and marketing I suppose.



    After reviewing the "protections" Obama put in place and the talking points being bandied about I am 110% against "Net Neutrality". We do need some laws to prevent corps like Google and Facebook using their powers and influence to censor at their discretion and manipulate markets and information. Nobody is addressing that at all in any of these arguments, or any of the existing or proposed legislation. If someone says otherwise they are lying to you. This shit is as deceptive in name as the "Patriot Act".
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    984

    Default Re: Net Neutrality

    After reviewing the "protections" Obama put in place and the talking points being bandied about I am 110% against "Net Neutrality". We do need some laws to prevent corps like Google and Facebook using their powers and influence to censor and manipulate markets. Nobody is addressing that at all in any of these arguments, or any of the existing or proposed legislation. If someone says otherwise they are lying to you.
    I'm completely unfamiliar with the US legislation on this. Are you saying the regulations that the FCC want to roll back do not prevent this (for example), and that rolling them back won't make that more likely?
    It's going to be a fine day tomorrow. We will have salad...

  7. #7

    Default Re: Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziel View Post
    I'm completely unfamiliar with the US legislation on this. Are you saying the regulations that the FCC want to roll back do not prevent this, and that rolling them back won't make that more likely?
    Correct, that falls under anti-trust legislation. The "net neutrality" shit in US has nothing to do with that. In fact Trump's DOJ acted to prevent a merger just today.

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...warner-merger/

    Existing anti-trust law needs to be wielded against Google and Facebook. None of this has anything to do with "net neutrality" which is supposed to be about "protecting routing" by making the internet backbone and ISP's be regulated in a similar fashion to phone companies (which is retarded and doesn't work) in how they route information or are allowed to route information.

    Open cmd.exe, type tracert mmo.catacombs.com

    That path is what this "fight" is supposedly about. Obama/Soros, etc think the government should be deeply involved in controlling and overseeing the path that information takes between A and B, and argue that ISP's and backbone operators can't be trusted to not fuck with the routes to competing products. Basically, regulatory capture predicated on solving an invented problem. Routes change a gazillion times a day because servers fuck up, etc. High traffic sites are automatically sent over stronger routes, sites like this one weaker routes. Almost the entire process is driven by algorithms. For heavy traffic sites like Netflix providers may try to make special human designed routes to speed things up since the site is requested a zillion times a day. If those routes break, things generally fail over to the default routing. The aim of "net neutrality" is to get the government deeply involved in this routing process.

    Obama put badly designed retard regulations in place towards the end of his term. They haven't really been implemented by anyone yet because they are retarded and can't be implemented. Those regulations are set to expire. THE END IS NIGH FOR THE FREE INTERWEBS, DUR.
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,394

    Default Re: Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    Correct, that falls under anti-trust legislation. The "net neutrality" shit in US has nothing to do with that. In fact Trump's DOJ acted to prevent a merger just today.

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...warner-merger/

    Existing anti-trust law needs to be wielded against Google and Facebook. None of this has anything to do with "net neutrality" which is supposed to be about "protecting routing" by making the internet backbone and ISP's be regulated in a similar fashion to phone companies (which is retarded and doesn't work) in how they route information or are allowed to route information.

    Open cmd.exe, type tracert mmo.catacombs.com

    That path is what this "fight" is supposedly about. Obama/Soros, etc think the government should be deeply involved in controlling and overseeing the path that information takes between A and B, and argue that ISP's and backbone operators can't be trusted to not fuck with the routes to competing products. Basically, regulatory capture predicated on solving an invented problem. Routes change a gazillion times a day because servers fuck up, etc. High traffic sites are automatically sent over stronger routes, sites like this one weaker routes. Almost the entire process is driven by algorithms. For heavy traffic sites like Netflix providers may try to make special human designed routes to speed things up since the site is requested a zillion times a day. If those routes break, things generally fail over to the default routing. The aim of "net neutrality" is to get the government deeply involved in this routing process.

    Obama put badly designed retard regulations in place towards the end of his term. They haven't really been implemented by anyone yet because they are retarded and can't be implemented. Those regulations are set to expire. THE END IS NIGH FOR THE FREE INTERWEBS, DUR.
    I don't have anything to add personally, since I haven't researched this at all. However, I saw this post on another forum in relation to it, that supports what you are saying:

    Net Neutrality is a paper tiger. In most areas, the territory is all ready established. They could, literally, charge what the market will bear.

    Without net neutrality, the territory is all ready established. They could, literally, charge what the market will bear.

    I used to be a Tier II cable tech. There are a handful of locations that actually offer multiple providers, mostly because there are only a handful of locations that have the infrastructure from multiple providers. Most of the reason why new infrastructure DOESN'T get improved/built is because of sub-rules in the net neutrality.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    984

    Default Re: Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    Correct, that falls under anti-trust legislation. The "net neutrality" shit in US has nothing to do with that. In fact Trump's DOJ acted to prevent a merger just today.

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...warner-merger/

    Existing anti-trust law needs to be wielded against Google and Facebook. None of this has anything to do with "net neutrality" which is supposed to be about "protecting routing" by making the internet backbone and ISP's be regulated in a similar fashion to phone companies (which is retarded and doesn't work) in how they route information or are allowed to route information.

    Open cmd.exe, type tracert mmo.catacombs.com

    That path is what this "fight" is supposedly about. Obama/Soros, etc think the government should be deeply involved in controlling and overseeing the path that information takes between A and B, and argue that ISP's and backbone operators can't be trusted to not fuck with the routes to competing products. Basically, regulatory capture predicated on solving an invented problem. Routes change a gazillion times a day because servers fuck up, etc. High traffic sites are automatically sent over stronger routes, sites like this one weaker routes. Almost the entire process is driven by algorithms. For heavy traffic sites like Netflix providers may try to make special human designed routes to speed things up since the site is requested a zillion times a day. If those routes break, things generally fail over to the default routing. The aim of "net neutrality" is to get the government deeply involved in this routing process.

    Obama put badly designed retard regulations in place towards the end of his term. They haven't really been implemented by anyone yet because they are retarded and can't be implemented. Those regulations are set to expire. THE END IS NIGH FOR THE FREE INTERWEBS, DUR.
    Keeping in mind that I qualify as one of the intellectually unqualified...

    The only things I can find regarding the applicability of anti-trust legislation to paid prioritization is that it either wouldn't necessarily apply or wouldn't be satisfactory (for example). How did you reach the position that current anti-trust legislation would effectively (not just technically) prevent paid prioritization?

    Regarding Obama's regulations, the current drama, as I understand it, surrounds the repeal of ISPs qualifying as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, with Section 202 specifically preventing paid prioritization (supposedly). I can find plenty of criticisms of classifying ISPs as common carriers, but only a single example (that of a conservative think-tank) arguing that Section 202 doesn't prevent paid prioritization. Section 202's wording of "unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services" would seem to allow the "reasonable" discrimination you've outlined while preventing the kind of purposeful prioritization most people deem undesirable. How are things not what they seem?
    It's going to be a fine day tomorrow. We will have salad...

  10. #10

    Default Re: Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziel View Post
    Keeping in mind that I qualify as one of the intellectually unqualified...

    The only things I can find regarding the applicability of anti-trust legislation to paid prioritization is that it either wouldn't necessarily apply or wouldn't be satisfactory (for example). How did you reach the position that current anti-trust legislation would effectively (not just technically) prevent paid prioritization?
    I don't care about paid prioritization at all, because of how that would have to function to exist in reality (it doesn't today).

    The form that would take is, "If you pay us money you can co-locate servers with your content in our data center so it's closer to our customers", or "we could set up special routers for you at points X-Y-Z to better serve content to our LA customers". If someone wants to make that kind of deal because the regular backbone isn't sufficient for whatever service they are offering, it's no skin off my back. Maybe then a service like those tried and failed console streaming apps could work. As it is, the only way those might work acceptably today is if the service was offered by your ISP, because they don't have to go over the backbone at all to reach you. With net neutrality (as marketed) all network services are stuck at public internet speeds because it becomes illegal to set up private pathways to connect servers. "No, you can't put your own equipment at points A, B, and C to get your data there faster. THAT'S ILLEGAL." At that point the only entity who can offer content that requires higher bandwidth than the regular backbone is your ISP, by law.

    If you say that out loud surely it sounds stupid to you?

    Tech giants are using their power to stomp down competitors and control information. ISP's and backbone providers aren't. ISP's use legislative and regulatory capture to get state and municipal quasi monopolies. I'm not confident existent anti-trust legislation is good enough to be applied there, but it could be improved. That's the actual issue of the day, not the esoteric bitching and moaning that goes on between backbone providers, ISPs, and huge content providers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziel
    Regarding Obama's regulations, the current drama, as I understand it, surrounds the repeal of ISPs qualifying as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, with Section 202 specifically preventing paid prioritization (supposedly). I can find plenty of criticisms of classifying ISPs as common carriers, but only a single example (that of a conservative think-tank) arguing that Section 202 doesn't prevent paid prioritization. Section 202's wording of "unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services" would seem to allow the "reasonable" discrimination you've outlined while preventing the kind of purposeful prioritization most people deem undesirable. How are things not what they seem?
    (a) Charges, services, etc.
    It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.
    (b) Charges or services included
    Charges or services, whenever referred to in this chapter, include charges for, or services in connection with, the use of common carrier lines of communication, whether derived from wire or radio facilities, in chain broadcasting or incidental to radio communication of any kind.
    (c) Penalty
    Any carrier who knowingly violates the provisions of this section shall forfeit to the United States the sum of $6,000 for each such offense and $300 for each and every day of the continuance of such offense.

    There is no effective way to enforce that as written on internet infrastructure and network routing. All of the power lies in interpretation and enforcement. It's just platitudes on paper. The legal system isn't even remotely equipped to handle cases arguing discriminatory routing and network topologies. They full retard on tech patents. May the entity with the most money and best lawyers win; because the cases are all gonna be decided based on who's lawyer sounds the most convincing irrespective of fact. It does nothing except give appointed government officials mandate to put a bunch of regulations on ISP's (most of which in the US *are* small). These regulations would have to be "interpreted" of course by the very large entities that will inevitably end up controlling the regulatory body because the actual language is completely worthless from the implementation perspective.

    Since the heads of all regulatory bodies ALWAYS end up being the top players in the market, they ALWAYS smother off all the smaller competition by interpreting and enforcing regulations the way that most benefits them. The giants can afford to comply of course, they "interpreted" the damn things after all, and they buy up all the smaller competitors. It leads to massive market consolidation and mergers, ALWAYS. At that point you've basically given the government the precursors it needs to do a Chinese style censorship firewall in exchange for absolutely nothing except making everything shittier, less competitive, and more expensive than it is today. All while stifling any attempt to bypass the limitations of the plain jane internet because it's not "content neutral", unless you can afford to argue it is not unjust or unreasonable. No issue for giants, big issues for small providers.

    You're gonna believe what you want to believe. I'm not going to draw upon my expertise or career to sway you because arguments from authority are pathetic on the internet. So, I will just reiterate that this entire thing is a farce, being financed by people that are the enemies of everything good and holy in the world.

    ------------------------------------------

    The internet *does* need some regulatory or legislative action AIMED squarely at shit-tier greedy censoring corporations like Google, Facebook, and Comcast. However, the Obama era regs have not yet been implemented, *ARE NOT THE ANSWER*, and don't even target the appropriate actors for the most part. Since they have not ever been implemented or enforced their "expiring" effectively does nothing at all. Those regs being implemented as is would be a slow moving disaster for reasons already stated. They were written in the 1930's. They don't address any of the actual problems, only hypothetical problems that don't exist in reality, and only then if "interpreted" in a way that's favorable by people/entities that have enough money to make their interpretation precedent through the courts; all while adding tons of other problems that would be very difficult if not impossible to fix once entrenched.

    Lowercase "net neutrality", the principle is a decent concept overall, but needs far more specific language than a 1934 statute written for telecoms to be implemented or enforced in a reasonable not corrupt way.
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    984

    Default Re: Net Neutrality

    You're gonna believe what you want to believe. I'm not going to draw upon my expertise or career to sway you because arguments from authority are pathetic on the internet. So, I will just reiterate that this entire thing is a farce, being financed by people that are the enemies of everything good and holy in the world.
    I'm just trying to get as much info out of you as you're willing to provide (and what you've given me so far is much appreciated). You clearly have a level of familiarity with the subject that surpasses most people, myself included, but I'm obviously going to ask about things that contradict the narrative that's going on fuckin' everywhere right now.
    It's going to be a fine day tomorrow. We will have salad...

  12. #12

    Default Re: Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziel View Post
    I'm just trying to get as much info out of you as you're willing to provide (and what you've given me so far is much appreciated). You clearly have a level of familiarity with the subject that surpasses most people, myself included, but I'm obviously going to ask about things that contradict the narrative that's going on fuckin' everywhere right now.
    I just kept adding on to it too. I can't help it with this level of bandwagoning, idiocy, slacktivism, and shilling going on. It reminds me of that Kony 2012 stuff in a way.

    http://archive.is/IahzF
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts