I’d like to get opinions on this subject. I’m not 100% concrete on exactly what I think although I have a pretty fair idea…but my hope is to get opinions from people who are intelligent and perhaps one or two that work in the industry.
Will it work in PWI? …who knows, but here goes!
I’m not going to pretend to thoroughly understand the issue. That said, hell may have just frozen over because I actually agree with Obama on this one. It seems to me this is basically in line with antitrust laws for fair business practices.
Looking forward to better answers 
My view on the internet is complicated by my esoteric conviction that some knowledge is dangerous when revealed to the masses. A purely physical example would be nuclear fission/fusion. The knowledge to create a nuclear bomb, biological weapon or even doomsday device is a branch of knowledge that most of us would want restricted; maybe even we would wish that no one had ever discovered these secrets.
But metaphysical truths can also be dangerous when revealed to the masses. This is an elitist worldview that gives rise to concept of the initiate or “those in the know”. This mentality is rife in the Men’s Rights movement which is itself a manifestation of the metaphysical struggle against modernity(but that’s another topic).
So to get back to the question, I’m against any current regime on the planet restricting the internet but I’m not against restriction of knowledge by an elite group on principle. Ideally, no knowledge would be restricted, but some knowledge would be withheld from the masses and only revealed to an elite caste of initiates.
Esotericism has precedent in the Greco-Roman mysteries cults, Gnostics and in many mainstream and/or orthodox Islamic, Christian and Jewish philosophers and theologians. Sorry to get off topic but my views on net neutrality are entirely based upon metaphysical convictions.
I can’t say I’m a big fan of an “elitist” deciding what knowledge I’m allowed access to.
As far as I know this is mostly about internet service providers, the part about government above would fall into the censorship category which is different.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I can’t say I’m a big fan of an “elitist” deciding what knowledge I’m allowed access to. [/quote]
Yes, I know. Anti-populist politics are always very unpopular. And you can never rely upon the electorate to disenfranchise itself. And so with universal enfranchisement we get the era of the “tyranny of the many” - the mob rule, the final stage in the political cycle(anacyclosis) where unscrupulous demagogues, always in the name of “the people”, pander to the impulses of the lowest common denominator with bread and circuses.
Here’s my understanding:
So, Obama is basically saying that it isn’t okay for ISP’s to charge for volume of use. IE: if netflics uses 90% of Comcast’s resources, and Joe’s Porn Hub only uses 2%, Comcast has to charge both the same $, and give both the same speed.
HOWEVER… If Joe public wants to pay for faster internet, it is totally cool for Comcast to charge the end user more. They just can’t charge content providers more.
So, basically, the new idea is to allow content providers to do whatever the fuck they want (Netflix, google, etc) and Comcast has to oblige, which mean you and I pay more…
That all being said… Companies like Comcast that hold content providers hostage by “slowing down” there service do so to strong arm them into paying more.
I don’t know how I feel, but if the government called us up tomorrow and said we can’t charge a client that takes up 40% of our man hours more than a client that takes up 2%, or prioritize them based on needs, etc… It would really suck.
I’m still working through this too…but I don’t think your original assertion is completely correct, CB (and/or it’s a bit more complex than that).
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’m still working through this too…but I don’t think your original assertion is completely correct, CB (and/or it’s a bit more complex than that).
Mufasa [/quote]
Ya I agree. I’m either misunderstanding (entirely possible) or it’s more complex than that (also possible).
Are ISPs not allowed to charge based on volume?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’m still working through this too…but I don’t think your original assertion is completely correct, CB (and/or it’s a bit more complex than that).
Mufasa [/quote]
Please correct me where I’m wrong then lol.
I like how this video explains that the way the internet is used is similar to phones, and that before phones were labelled as being common carriage, certain businesses were able to buy preferential treatment in order to better receive customers calls, which kind of fucked up anyone wanting to call someone who wasn’t given or bought preferential treatment. As such, if I understand things correctly the internet should be labelled as common carriage.
Also, I don’t think having fission/fusion knowledge in the public domain is dangerous. To have the resources to do anything with that would negate the fact that it is in the public sphere, eg if you can do anything significant with respect to fusion/fission, then money would not be an issue, and therefore access to that type of knowledge wouldn’t be an issue either. So I would say that that is fearmongering in order to push an agenda of exclusive rights to information. This also ties in with much knowledge or data that is generated is tied to public funding, which should be directly available to any citizen (eg taxpayer) who indirectly funded it.
From the Time piece:
stop ISPs from blocking access to legal content - Okay… Does this even happen now? I mean outside when google does this to you on every search, and tracks you to micro target ads
prevent them from ?throttling? some types of Internet traffic - Doesn’t all their traffic get this?
apply net-neutrality rules between ISPs and the rest of the Internet - no fucking clue as to what that means, and this article is pissing me off with lack of detail right now.
and ban paid prioritization of content, which involves a content provider paying an ISP to get its offerings to your home faster than other content is delivered - Maybe this is where I’m confused. This certainly sounds like “Comcast can’t charge Netflix more than Joe’s Porn Stash, even though Netflix is 300x the strain on the system, because HD Netflix requires faster speeds than low quality homemade fart porn.”
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
4) and ban paid prioritization of content, which involves a content provider paying an ISP to get its offerings to your home faster than other content is delivered - Maybe this is where I’m confused. This certainly sounds like “Comcast can’t charge Netflix more than Joe’s Porn Stash, even though Netflix is 300x the strain on the system, because HD Netflix requires faster speeds than low quality homemade fart porn.”[/quote]
See I thought this mean’t Comcast couldn’t charge to speed up delivery of content or slow down delivery conversely. I haven’t seen much of anything on what they can charge or if it can be based on volume.
I mean, it seems kinda dumb if they can’t charge by volume.
Edited.
The problem I have with this is do we really trust the government, once they bring it under their control with Title II, to not continually expand upon what they do and do not have the ability to regulate? Once they get their foot in the door, it sure as hell isn’t going back on and the intrusion will inevitably become greater and greater. If they control ease of access to information through regulations on speed, thought-policing and using it as a social engineering tool (ie that page you like that doesn’t agree with the progressive liberal PC agenda all of the sudden takes an hour to load because the gov’t had to step in and do something about the hate speech they were spewing) suddenly becomes a lot easier. Or am I off in tinfoil hat territory here and totally missing the point??
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
4) and ban paid prioritization of content, which involves a content provider paying an ISP to get its offerings to your home faster than other content is delivered - Maybe this is where I’m confused. This certainly sounds like “Comcast can’t charge Netflix more than Joe’s Porn Stash, even though Netflix is 300x the strain on the system, because HD Netflix requires faster speeds than low quality homemade fart porn.”[/quote]
See I thought this mean’t Comcast couldn’t charge to speed up delivery of content or slow down delivery conversely. I haven’t seen much of anything on what they can charge or if it can be based on volume.
I mean, it seems kinda dumb if they can’t charge by volume.
Edited. [/quote]
I think you’re correct. I don’t think this has anything to do with restricting ISPs from charging by volume. It will restrict them from charging content providers for prioritization.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
4) and ban paid prioritization of content, which involves a content provider paying an ISP to get its offerings to your home faster than other content is delivered - Maybe this is where I’m confused. This certainly sounds like “Comcast can’t charge Netflix more than Joe’s Porn Stash, even though Netflix is 300x the strain on the system, because HD Netflix requires faster speeds than low quality homemade fart porn.”[/quote]
See I thought this mean’t Comcast couldn’t charge to speed up delivery of content or slow down delivery conversely. I haven’t seen much of anything on what they can charge or if it can be based on volume.
I mean, it seems kinda dumb if they can’t charge by volume.
Edited. [/quote]
That’s my point. They have to use a significantly higher amount of resources to get Netflix to users (who pay for both the net & the fucking movie) than they do, say, a forum where we all sit around and shit on each other all day about politics. The Netflix needs more speed to be effective, if TNation loads 3 seconds slower… Not many of us are going to notice. If Netflix buffers every 10 seconds, people will lose their fucking minds. (I’m not joking when I say riots in the street).
That means Comcast HAS to provide Netflix with more speed, and it HAS to provide TimmyGamer the same speed when Timmy develops an ultra popular game in 4 years that requires twice as much data as “Friday the 13th” in HD, and 600x times more data/speed than TNation forums. But, Comcast can’t charge them different rates…
That sounds fucking stupid as shit. If that happened to my firm we would be screwed.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
The problem I have with this is do we really trust the government, once they bring it under their control with Title II, to not continually expand upon what they do and do not have the ability to regulate? Once they get their foot in the door, it sure as hell isn’t going back on and the intrusion will inevitably become greater and greater. If they control ease of access to information through regulations on speed, thought-policing and using it as a social engineering tool (ie that page you like that doesn’t agree with the progressive liberal PC agenda all of the sudden takes an hour to load because the gov’t had to step in and do something about the hate speech they were spewing) suddenly becomes a lot easier. Or am I off in tinfoil hat territory here and totally missing the point??[/quote]
First thing I thought of was the IRS political persecution too.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
4) and ban paid prioritization of content, which involves a content provider paying an ISP to get its offerings to your home faster than other content is delivered - Maybe this is where I’m confused. This certainly sounds like “Comcast can’t charge Netflix more than Joe’s Porn Stash, even though Netflix is 300x the strain on the system, because HD Netflix requires faster speeds than low quality homemade fart porn.”[/quote]
See I thought this mean’t Comcast couldn’t charge to speed up delivery of content or slow down delivery conversely. I haven’t seen much of anything on what they can charge or if it can be based on volume.
I mean, it seems kinda dumb if they can’t charge by volume.
Edited. [/quote]
I think you’re correct. I don’t think this has anything to do with restricting ISPs from charging by volume. It will restrict them from charging content providers for prioritization.
[/quote]
If demand is that users are requesting the ISP to deliver Netflix at a 200:1 ratio between 7pm and 12am on any given night, why the fuck shouldn’t Netflix be charged more? Comcast can charge me more for wanting fast service… Why can’t the content providers pony up some dough too.
Why is the government looking to protect the pocket books of Netflix, Google, etc?
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
4) and ban paid prioritization of content, which involves a content provider paying an ISP to get its offerings to your home faster than other content is delivered - Maybe this is where I’m confused. This certainly sounds like “Comcast can’t charge Netflix more than Joe’s Porn Stash, even though Netflix is 300x the strain on the system, because HD Netflix requires faster speeds than low quality homemade fart porn.”[/quote]
See I thought this mean’t Comcast couldn’t charge to speed up delivery of content or slow down delivery conversely. I haven’t seen much of anything on what they can charge or if it can be based on volume.
I mean, it seems kinda dumb if they can’t charge by volume.
Edited. [/quote]
I think you’re correct. I don’t think this has anything to do with restricting ISPs from charging by volume. It will restrict them from charging content providers for prioritization.
[/quote]
It means that the federal government decides where it applies. Once it’s labeled title 2 the ISP’s will lobby to create price controls on the client side as well to create a formal monopoly.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
4) and ban paid prioritization of content, which involves a content provider paying an ISP to get its offerings to your home faster than other content is delivered - Maybe this is where I’m confused. This certainly sounds like “Comcast can’t charge Netflix more than Joe’s Porn Stash, even though Netflix is 300x the strain on the system, because HD Netflix requires faster speeds than low quality homemade fart porn.”[/quote]
See I thought this mean’t Comcast couldn’t charge to speed up delivery of content or slow down delivery conversely. I haven’t seen much of anything on what they can charge or if it can be based on volume.
I mean, it seems kinda dumb if they can’t charge by volume.
Edited. [/quote]
I think you’re correct. I don’t think this has anything to do with restricting ISPs from charging by volume. It will restrict them from charging content providers for prioritization.
[/quote]
If demand is that users are requesting the ISP to deliver Netflix at a 200:1 ratio between 7pm and 12am on any given night, why the fuck shouldn’t Netflix be charged more? Comcast can charge me more for wanting fast service… Why can’t the content providers pony up some dough too.
Why is the government looking to protect the pocket books of Netflix, Google, etc?[/quote]
I think you’re mixing up bandwidth and speed. If Netflix wants more bandwidth to allow large amounts of data to be transferred at once then yes charge based on volume. But speed is a different thing. When you buy internet from a service provider you’re not buying speed your buying bandwidth. I could have a 20mb download and you could have a 100mb download and it’s possible for the ISP to manipulate the actual transmission of the data so that even though i have less bandwidth my internet can be faster than yours.