Net Neutrality Protest - Thousands of Sites Join

[Ethel mermania]

No, the current debate in the US is about forcing content providers to pay to get their content prioritized in the isp's network.

Look at what t-mobile did. They cUT a deal with netflix so netflix streaming doesn't count against the data cap. That gives an unfair advantage to netflix over their competitors on the t-mobile network. (In the states wireless is pretty much exempt from net neutrality now).

That's exactly what I just said.

No it isnt. Censoring content would be blocking it. Favoring is not censoring.

[Minoa]

The website is Australian if you go by the author but it doesn't hide the fact that there are a lot of US visitors.

Well, according to IP Location finder, it is in three different places at once. Which is always good.

It's either in :-

San Francisco, Montreal or Phoenix. However San Francisco comes up three times, and the other two only come up once, so I would hazard a guess it is more likely to be that.

Or, you know, its just screwing with us and it's on the moon. Or inside Max's head.

EDIT : I tested it with somewhere I KNOW where it is hosted, and it turns out that Montreal might be a more reasonable bet.

it is not uncommon for webmasters to have servers abroad (Sheffield-based webmaster using a Paris-based server, for example), and to use multi-node Content Delivery Networks.

[The Black Forrest]

Net neutrality is not (primarily) about data caps. It is about ISPs being prevented from using their defacto monopolies to censor content.

No, the current debate in the US is about forcing content providers to pay to get their content prioritized in the isp's network.

Look at what t-mobile did. They cUT a deal with netflix so netflix streaming doesn't count against the data cap. That gives an unfair advantage to netflix over their competitors on the t-mobile network. (In the states wireless is pretty much exempt from net neutrality now).

Now if only netflix get's that they you have a complaint.

*shrugs* Why does there have to be a data cap anyway?

[Saiwania]

*shrugs* Why does there have to be a data cap anyway?

It is to prevent everyone from downloading an obscenely large amount of data over the course of a month and bring an ISPs network to a crawl during peak hours. It costs money to buy more servers, fiber cabling, telecommunications equipment, etc. that is needed to actually deliver internet service to a large amount of people, costs even more to support many people downloading huger amounts of data. The large upfront costs of network maintenance and expansion has to be recouped somehow.

A data cap can be seen as an acceptable trade off, provided your normal usage isn't very high but you want to pay less if you use less.

[Galloism]

No, the current debate in the US is about forcing content providers to pay to get their content prioritized in the isp's network.

Look at what t-mobile did. They cUT a deal with netflix so netflix streaming doesn't count against the data cap. That gives an unfair advantage to netflix over their competitors on the t-mobile network. (In the states wireless is pretty much exempt from net neutrality now).

Now if only netflix get's that they you have a complaint.

*shrugs* Why does there have to be a data cap anyway?

Well, with wireless, physics, basically.

With wired, inadequate infrastructure investment. For decades.

[Ethel mermania]

No, the current debate in the US is about forcing content providers to pay to get their content prioritized in the isp's network.

Look at what t-mobile did. They cUT a deal with netflix so netflix streaming doesn't count against the data cap. That gives an unfair advantage to netflix over their competitors on the t-mobile network. (In the states wireless is pretty much exempt from net neutrality now).

Now if only netflix get's that they you have a complaint.

*shrugs* Why does there have to be a data cap anyway?

1..To make money
And
2. To limit stress on the network.

Top end network gear is very expensive, so it also limits the cost of the network. In theory the provider could pass that cost saving back to you the consumer, but in practice see reason 1.

[Salandriagado]

That's exactly what I just said.

No it isnt. Censoring content would be blocking it. Favoring is not censoring.

If it's slowed down to the point of being basically unusable, it's de-facto censored.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

https://thetrichordist.com/2017/07/12/have-you-been-suckered-on-net-neutrality-debate-by-google-and-big-tech/amp/

This may have already been posted, and I haven't bothered to even skim the whole thing.

Inconvenient Fact #1: Rule change does not end net neutrality.

True or False? The new rules proposed by the FCC will end net neutrality.

False.

I know this is hard to swallow based on everything you’ve read on the internet . But just do this…

Did you look at the form letter you are being asked to send to your congressman, or the talking points script you’re supposed to use for that phone call? It says something about “Title II regulation” right? What is being proposed is dropping Title II regulation of the internet. Not ending net neutrality. Dropping Title II means the FTC not the FCC is now back in charge of net neutrality. Like it was from 2007-2014. Was your internet broken then? Remember in 2012 these exact same groups were shouting “Don’t Break the Internet” when the SOPA anti-piracy legislation was proposed. Even they admit the internet was pretty darn good in 2012. Worst case scenario the internet goes back to 2014.

So what is this really about?

It’s not about net neutrality that’s for sure. This is really a skirmish between two sets of crony capitalists. Telecoms/Cable on one side and the Google/Facebook/Silicon Valley ad-spying complex on the other. Title II forces telecoms and cable to live under a bunch of rules that benefits Google, Facebook and their online ad/spying ecosystem. It also gives the FCC extraordinary powers to regulate the internet.

In this case the last FCC commission used that extraordinary power to impose stringent rules to protect net neutrality. But Title II could actually go the other way. The FCC could also use their extraordinary power to impose all sorts of bad things on the internet as well. Think about the power the FCC has over terrestrial TV radio on foul language? It’s quite interesting that FCC chairman Ajit Pai is divesting the FCC of this power. Meanwhile free speech advocates want the FCC to retain this power. It’s absolutely ass backwards. And when things are this ass backwards, when the doublespeak is this blatant it’s usually cause your individual rights are in great danger.

“It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”

In order to save free speech on the internet we have to put the FCC in charge of speech on the internet.

Follow the Money/Lobbyists

There are two main groups that are pushing the net neutrality issue tomorrow. One group is Fight For The Future. The other is Free Press. Let’s start with Fight For The Future.

Fight for the Future looks like a groovy progressive internet civil rights group. They even have a transgender spokesperson! The problem is that when you look at tax documents, FOIA-ed emails and their past activity you get a totally different picture.

[Greater Cesnica]

No it isnt. Censoring content would be blocking it. Favoring is not censoring.

If it's slowed down to the point of being basically unusable, it's de-facto censored.

That is a form of censorship.

[Ethel mermania]

No it isnt. Censoring content would be blocking it. Favoring is not censoring.

If it's slowed down to the point of being basically unusable, it's de-facto censored.

1. That is not what anyone is talking about.
2. No it isnt, the only practicsal effect is video delivery in real time, or as in t-mobile's case, having that data charged against the cap, where the preferred content partners data doesnt.

[The Flutterlands]

https://thetrichordist.com/2017/07/12/have-you-been-suckered-on-net-neutrality-debate-by-google-and-big-tech/amp/

This may have already been posted, and I haven't bothered to even skim the whole thing.

Inconvenient Fact #1: Rule change does not end net neutrality.

True or False? The new rules proposed by the FCC will end net neutrality.

False.

I know this is hard to swallow based on everything you’ve read on the internet . But just do this…

Did you look at the form letter you are being asked to send to your congressman, or the talking points script you’re supposed to use for that phone call? It says something about “Title II regulation” right? What is being proposed is dropping Title II regulation of the internet. Not ending net neutrality. Dropping Title II means the FTC not the FCC is now back in charge of net neutrality. Like it was from 2007-2014. Was your internet broken then? Remember in 2012 these exact same groups were shouting “Don’t Break the Internet” when the SOPA anti-piracy legislation was proposed. Even they admit the internet was pretty darn good in 2012. Worst case scenario the internet goes back to 2014.

So what is this really about?

It’s not about net neutrality that’s for sure. This is really a skirmish between two sets of crony capitalists. Telecoms/Cable on one side and the Google/Facebook/Silicon Valley ad-spying complex on the other. Title II forces telecoms and cable to live under a bunch of rules that benefits Google, Facebook and their online ad/spying ecosystem. It also gives the FCC extraordinary powers to regulate the internet.

In this case the last FCC commission used that extraordinary power to impose stringent rules to protect net neutrality. But Title II could actually go the other way. The FCC could also use their extraordinary power to impose all sorts of bad things on the internet as well. Think about the power the FCC has over terrestrial TV radio on foul language? It’s quite interesting that FCC chairman Ajit Pai is divesting the FCC of this power. Meanwhile free speech advocates want the FCC to retain this power. It’s absolutely ass backwards. And when things are this ass backwards, when the doublespeak is this blatant it’s usually cause your individual rights are in great danger.

“It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”

In order to save free speech on the internet we have to put the FCC in charge of speech on the internet.

Follow the Money/Lobbyists

There are two main groups that are pushing the net neutrality issue tomorrow. One group is Fight For The Future. The other is Free Press. Let’s start with Fight For The Future.

Fight for the Future looks like a groovy progressive internet civil rights group. They even have a transgender spokesperson! The problem is that when you look at tax documents, FOIA-ed emails and their past activity you get a totally different picture.

The arguments made here are utterly backwards and wronger than wrong.

Title II rules are suppose to prevent ISPs from throtlling, blocking, and bullying web content for fees. The rules make the internet free, open and equal. Without Title II the interney could become like Cable TV with Website packages for extra fees.

[Galloism]

https://thetrichordist.com/2017/07/12/have-you-been-suckered-on-net-neutrality-debate-by-google-and-big-tech/amp/

This may have already been posted, and I haven't bothered to even skim the whole thing.

Inconvenient Fact #1: Rule change does not end net neutrality.

True or False? The new rules proposed by the FCC will end net neutrality.

False.

I know this is hard to swallow based on everything you’ve read on the internet . But just do this…

Did you look at the form letter you are being asked to send to your congressman, or the talking points script you’re supposed to use for that phone call? It says something about “Title II regulation” right? What is being proposed is dropping Title II regulation of the internet. Not ending net neutrality. Dropping Title II means the FTC not the FCC is now back in charge of net neutrality. Like it was from 2007-2014. Was your internet broken then? Remember in 2012 these exact same groups were shouting “Don’t Break the Internet” when the SOPA anti-piracy legislation was proposed. Even they admit the internet was pretty darn good in 2012. Worst case scenario the internet goes back to 2014.

So what is this really about?

It’s not about net neutrality that’s for sure. This is really a skirmish between two sets of crony capitalists. Telecoms/Cable on one side and the Google/Facebook/Silicon Valley ad-spying complex on the other. Title II forces telecoms and cable to live under a bunch of rules that benefits Google, Facebook and their online ad/spying ecosystem. It also gives the FCC extraordinary powers to regulate the internet.

In this case the last FCC commission used that extraordinary power to impose stringent rules to protect net neutrality. But Title II could actually go the other way. The FCC could also use their extraordinary power to impose all sorts of bad things on the internet as well. Think about the power the FCC has over terrestrial TV radio on foul language? It’s quite interesting that FCC chairman Ajit Pai is divesting the FCC of this power. Meanwhile free speech advocates want the FCC to retain this power. It’s absolutely ass backwards. And when things are this ass backwards, when the doublespeak is this blatant it’s usually cause your individual rights are in great danger.

“It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”

In order to save free speech on the internet we have to put the FCC in charge of speech on the internet.

Follow the Money/Lobbyists

There are two main groups that are pushing the net neutrality issue tomorrow. One group is Fight For The Future. The other is Free Press. Let’s start with Fight For The Future.

Fight for the Future looks like a groovy progressive internet civil rights group. They even have a transgender spokesperson! The problem is that when you look at tax documents, FOIA-ed emails and their past activity you get a totally different picture.

My internet was broken before 2014 (at least, between 2012 and 2014). My local service provider deliberately blocked websites critical of their service.

And it wasn't just small ISPs. Verizon argued in court they had a first amendment right to block any content they don't like.

This net neutrality thing didn't appear in a vacuum.

[Salandriagado]

If it's slowed down to the point of being basically unusable, it's de-facto censored.

That is a form of censorship.

Yes, that's what I said.

[Salandriagado]

If it's slowed down to the point of being basically unusable, it's de-facto censored.

1. That is not what anyone is talking about.

Yes it is.

2. No it isnt, the only practicsal effect is video delivery in real time, or as in t-mobile's case, having that data charged against the cap, where the preferred content partners data doesnt.

That's censorship.

[Ethel mermania]

1. That is not what anyone is talking about.

Yes it is.

2. No it isnt, the only practicsal effect is video delivery in real time, or as in t-mobile's case, having that data charged against the cap, where the preferred content partners data doesnt.

That's censorship.

Since we are not speaking the same language, I don't see the point of continuing.

[The Flutterlands]

So thoughts on the defeatist arguments that the FCC will rollback Net Neutrality no matter how much we kick and scream about it? I mean, the courts might side with us supporters in a lawsuit but still...

[Zanera]

So thoughts on the defeatist arguments that the FCC will rollback Net Neutrality no matter how much we kick and scream about it? I mean, the courts might side with us supporters in a lawsuit but still...

Can you speak louder than money?

[The Flutterlands]

So thoughts on the defeatist arguments that the FCC will rollback Net Neutrality no matter how much we kick and scream about it? I mean, the courts might side with us supporters in a lawsuit but still...

Can you speak louder than money?

The tech and website companies have money. Google, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit. They have lots of money.

Still, this shouldn't be a waste of time. The only fight worth fighting is a winnable fight anything else is, to repeat myself, a waste of time.

[Potthan]

CNN?

I was gonna say Infowars, but yeah CNN works as well as long as they lie as much as Alex Jones does (They don't so)

But they blackmail kids who make shitty jokes.

[Ethel mermania]

https://thetrichordist.com/2017/07/12/have-you-been-suckered-on-net-neutrality-debate-by-google-and-big-tech/amp/

This may have already been posted, and I haven't bothered to even skim the whole thing.

My internet was broken before 2014 (at least, between 2012 and 2014). My local service provider deliberately blocked websites critical of their service.

And it wasn't just small ISPs. Verizon argued in court they had a first amendment right to block any content they don't like.

This net neutrality thing didn't appear in a vacuum.

There are two questions here.
1. Does title 2 cover ISP's, ?
2. If so, should the ISP's be treated as a ... for lack of a term that escapes me a common carrier? (as telephone communications are).

[Valrifell]

My internet was broken before 2014 (at least, between 2012 and 2014). My local service provider deliberately blocked websites critical of their service.

And it wasn't just small ISPs. Verizon argued in court they had a first amendment right to block any content they don't like.

This net neutrality thing didn't appear in a vacuum.

There are two questions here.
1. Does title 2 cover ISP's, ?
2. If so, should the ISP's be treated as a ... for lack of a term that escapes me a common carrier? (as telephone communications are).

In 2015 or so ISPs were ruled to be common carriers, yes.

[Galloism]

My internet was broken before 2014 (at least, between 2012 and 2014). My local service provider deliberately blocked websites critical of their service.

And it wasn't just small ISPs. Verizon argued in court they had a first amendment right to block any content they don't like.

This net neutrality thing didn't appear in a vacuum.

There are two questions here.
1. Does title 2 cover ISP's, ?

Per the FCC prior to the election yes. The current FCC is working on reclassifying them from Title 2 to Title 1.

2. If so, should the ISP's be treated as a ... for lack of a term that escapes me a common carrier? (as telephone communications are).

They should and currently are. The FCC is now working on undoing that.

[Genivaria]

Yeah I've been seeing Net Neutrality petitions pop up on alot of the sites I use.

[Ethel mermania]

There are two questions here.
1. Does title 2 cover ISP's, ?
2. If so, should the ISP's be treated as a ... for lack of a term that escapes me a common carrier? (as telephone communications are).

In 2015 or so ISPs were ruled to be common carriers, yes.

Court order, congressional action, or FCC rule? FCC rules can be changed on a whim, court orders and laws, not so much.

[Valrifell]

In 2015 or so ISPs were ruled to be common carriers, yes.

Court order, congressional action, or FCC rule? FCC rules can be changed on a whim, court orders and laws, not so much.

FCC ruling, iirc.